EMISSIONS CUTS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH – THAT WORKS

A synthesis of the best economic models predicts emissions reduction policies need not come at the expense of economic growth. For U.S. leaders who have been told they must cast votes choosing between the urgency of cutting emissions and the urgency of nurturing an economy on which so many depend, this will come as welcome news.

Robert Repetto, professor of economics and sustainable development, Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies: “As Congress prepares to debate new legislation to address the threat of climate change, opponents claim that the costs of adopting the leading proposals would be ruinous to the U.S. economy. The world’s leading economists who have studied the issue say that’s wrong…”

The Repetto synthesis concludes: U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grows an average of 3% (in current decades). A 40% cut in emissions from projected business-as-usual levels, even when applying the most pessimistic assumptions about other economic factors, shows GDP continuing to grow at a 2.4% rate. Applying more optimistic assumptions, the growth rate is 3%.

Many criticize GDP as an accurate measure of economic value (see HAZEL HENDERSON: DOING WELL AND DOING GOOD…) because it fails to include some important measures and includes other negatives as positives. Robert F. Kennedy: “The gross national product includes air pollution and advertising for cigarettes and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and jails for the people who break them. GNP includes the destruction of the redwoods and the death of Lake Superior. It grows with the production of napalm, and missiles and nuclear warheads... it does not allow for the health of our families, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It is indifferent to the decency of our factories and the safety of our streets alike. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, or the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile…”

Footnote: 40% emissions cuts by the U.S. over 20 years may be just good enough, or not even enough, especially if the developing world fails to join the effort. The Kyoto goals are 20% cuts by 2020 and 80% by 2050. 40% is near the mark.

click to enlarge

Reducing carbon emissions could help – not harm – U.S. economy
Janet Rettif Emanuel, 19 March 2008 (Yale University via EurekAlert)

WHO
Robert Repetto, professor of economics and sustainable development, Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies

WHAT
Professor Repetto’s See For Yourself synthesizes the findings of 25 economic models and comes to the conclusion that a U.S. policy of a 40% emissions reductions over the next 20 years would facilitate economic growth.

Repetto's website generates graphic information about the player's assumptions... (click to enlarge)

WHEN
Professor Repetto’s constellation of analyses finds U.S. GDP rising at a 2.4% rate to $23 trillion by 2030.

WHERE
See For Yourself allows choices among assumptions and provides economic predictions based on the assumptions.

...And then provides an overall conclusion about long term growth based on the assumptions. (click to enlarge)

WHY
- The computer synthesis identifies the seven key assumptions accounting for most of the differences in predictions coming in the economic models.
- The key optimistic assumptions in the economic models include (1) New Energy technologies will be available at “stable or increasing” prices; (2) higher fossil fuel prices will increase technological changes; (3) cutting emissions will cut the economic costs of climate change/air pollution; (4) the U.S. will legislate a national, mandatory cap-and-trade system.

QUOTES
Professor Repetto: “The website shows that even under the most unfavorable assumptions regarding costs, the U.S. economy is predicted to continue growing robustly as carbon emissions are reduced…Under favorable assumptions, the economy would grow more rapidly if emissions are reduced through national policy measures than if they are allowed to increase as in the past.”