6 ms·
Well if you read the description below the graph you'll get a little insight into the nuances between the models. SSP1 - the 2nd place amongst GDP metrics - lo
by Festro 4y ago
Well if you read the description below the graph you'll get a little insight into the nuances between the models.
SSP1 - the 2nd place amongst GDP metrics - lowers poverty, reduces inequality, and helps the environment as well as improving health and education.
SSP5 - the 1st place - just bull rushes economic growth, but does little to reduce equality, and doesn't help health or the environment.
The broader sense of social well-being is maximised by SSP1. SSP5 is a short-term economic growth trend. Something shortsighted and ultimately very bad.
It's natural that investing into cheaper, more harmful resources, could benefit us more in the short term. But doesn't it make sense to go for the more beneficial long-term developments that will come down in cost with investment anyways? The earlier the better?
It's tempting to shoot for fossil fuels still, but scratch the surface and the benefits of developing sustainable resources is better now in a host of ways besides immediate economic growth, and better economically in the long run too once fossil fuels become scarcer and enviromental disasters damage industry.
Just look at recent issues like global instability's effect on energy import, and how our infrastructure can be impacted by small issues (shipping routes collapsing). Climate issues like flooding and rising sea levels, would dramatically imapct shiopping. And mass immigration from those disasters would increase likelihoods of wars that affect global trade.
Limiting the chances for these things to happen, at the cost of immediate GDP growth, is better for everyone.
It's a prisoner's dilemma between nations and currently everyone is playing to win only for themselves - and so everyone is losing.
- Festro 4y agoContinuing - "why should we aim to reduce emissions at a significant detriment to human life?" That's a false premise - GDP =/= benefit to human life. It's actually just a subjective benefit to some humans who control capital in those high GDP countries. Human life goes far beyond GDP and things like happiness metrics and longevity metrics do not always directly correlate to GDP.
- krona 4y agoGDP per capita correlates quite nicely with life expectancy, so it seems GDP isn't just a number, it actually corresponds with something in reality.
- dtech 4y agoOnce you are in a high GDP (western countries) situation it doesn't matter anymore, and an increase in GDP for those does not really mean an increase in life expectancy. The marginal benefit decreases massively. See e.g. US GDP growing 38% 2009-2019, but life expectancy being stagnant with a 0.5% increase. [1] https://datacommons.org/place/country/USA?utm_medium=explore&mprop=lifeExpectancy&popt=Person&hl=en# https://datacommons.org/place/country/USA?utm_medium=explore...
- prottog 4y agoOf course, it's not the case that had the US GDP not grown as much, we would instead have had more of an increase in life expectancy. The American population is unfortunately quite unhealthy by global standards, mainly due to lifestyle issues. Besides, with the US life expectancy at 79 years and the world's best at 85, you're not buying much to begin with. As other commenters are pointing out, it would be nice if there was a better measure of a population's health and happiness; but GDP corresponds to it to a large degree, perhaps up to a certain point of wealth, as you said.
- cratermoon 4y ago> mainly due to lifestyle issues Are you blaming individual choice for problems that are systemic in nature?
- prottog 4y agoNo blame; I'm observing, not condemning. Your phrasing does make me question, however, whether you think individual choice amounts to anything, considering we all form parts of systems.
- danuker 4y agoOnce you get past $20k/yr GDP per capita, there's indeed limited additional benefit (there are diminishing returns). But if look at the scenarios for Middle East and Africa, it would take roughly 10 years longer for the Green Road scenario to get to $20k/yr, compared to the Highway. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/ipcc-scenarios?facet=none&Metric=GDP&Rate=Per+capita&Region=Middle+East+and+Africa https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/ipcc-scenarios?facet=no...
- 4RealFreedom 4y agoReminds me of the saying "money can't buy happiness". It can't but it does remove friction. A country with a larger GDP can do more for it's citizens.
- analog31 4y agoThat country is likely to do so by shipping carbon and misery to poorer countries unless some sort of international pressure or governance happens.
- slibhb 4y agoThere's nothing subjective about central heating, air conditioning, healthcare, and living in homes that can easily withstand hurricanes and flooding.
- matthiasb 4y agoYour answer is spot on. This makes me think of Yoichi Kaya's formula: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity It shows illustrates the dependency between GDP, population, energy and emissions. Assuming we don't want to reduce population and GDP, we are left with optimizing energy and emission intensity. I just finished this comic book by Jancovici which explains all this and it is very easy to read. https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-End-Blain-Christophe-ebook/dp/B0B42ZW3VD https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-End-Blain-Christophe-eb...
- danuker 4y agoI believe economic inequality is quite unrelated to pollution. You can have rich and green (Ireland/Switzerland), rich and carbon-heavy (Arab states/US/Aussie), poor and green (most developing countries have very low carbon emissions) or poor and carbon-heavy (Iran). https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-fossil-energy-vs-gdp https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-fossil-energy-... Also, do you not consider 2100 "long-term"? Do you think economic effects of the environment will only reflect later?
- trabant00 4y ago> You can have rich and green (Ireland/Switzerland) You can only have that because they outsource pollution.
- the_third_wave 4y agoThe comparison here was "carbon-heavy" versus "green", not polluting versus non-polluting. Carbon dioxide is not pollution and has no relation to the outsourcing of it. A country which uses 100% nuclear power and as such does not emit any (or hardly any) Carbon dioxide would be "green" and as such would be "rich and green".
- trabant00 4y agoThe post I'm replying to starts with "I believe economic inequality is quite unrelated to _pollution_." And energy production is just one aspect. Do the rich green countries not consume any plastic products? Meat? Do they have 100% electric vehicles?
- danuker 4y agoI was referring to greenhouse gas pollution, which may have been unclear. CO2 and methane are pollutants. But your point still stands, as you illustrate. Countries might be importing CO2- and methane-heavy products rather than manufacture their own.
- 4y ago
- jvanderbot 4y agoGreat reply. You may find more mileage with the "tragedy of the commons" analogy, but prisoners dilemma is certainly better known.