Can We Bank on Recessions to Keep Global Warming In Check?

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ribarnica/6762990509/in/photostream/">ribarnica</a>/Flickr


This post first appeared on the Guardian website.

Greenhouse gas emissions rise when economies expand but don’t fall as quickly when recession strikes, according to new research that emphasises the risks of relying on economic downturns to keep future emissions in check.

The most likely reason is that carbon-emitting vehicles and infrastructure created as the economy grows continue to be used in harder times, even as the economy contracts.

Based on a review of World Bank statistics of more than 150 nations from 1960 to 2008, the research – published in Nature Climate Change on Sunday – found that emissions of carbon dioxide rose by an average of 0.7% for every 1% growth in gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. But emissions fell just 0.43% for every 1% decline in GDP per capita.

The study’s author, Richard York of the University of Oregon, said:

Economic decline … doesn’t lead to as big a decline in emissions as a comparable amount of economic growth leads to growth in emissions. When economies decline, factories don’t shut down immediately, people don’t stop driving (although they may defer buying a new car) and new buildings still needed heating or air-conditioning.

York said that his research suggest that economists may need to rethink how they project future growth of carbon dioxide. Most studies assume that GDP and emissions move in lockstep, both up and down.

He said the findings:

…don’t necessarily suggest future emissions will generally be higher or lower than current projections, but they suggest that this will depend more sensitively on how exactly economies grow (or shrink) … it doesn’t only matter how big GDP is in the future, but also how it gets there, such as by slow steady growth, or by periods of rapid growth mixed with recession.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change foresees the world economy expanding steadily to anywhere from $235 trillion to $550 trillion by 2100, up from just $21 trillion in 1990.

It predicts that the associated economic activity would increase emissions sufficiently to raise world temperatures by between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees Celsius, increasing the impact of floods, droughts, heat waves and rising sea levels.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate