In the last 100 years emissions have simply been the side effect of economic growth, so any action to curb emissions also inferred a drop in a nation’s economy. As of a 2014 Internal Energy agency survey, however, those times may be changing. In the study they found that for the first time in the studies forty years, emissions plateaued with an increase in global GDP. Studies since have confirmed this finding. These results have only been found in select countries but using their framework other countries may soon follow in their choices and reduce their emissions.
The article infers that low natural gas rates in the US have caused our decoupling of GDP increases and emissions because natural gas burns CO2 at a rate that is about half of coal, which is what has been historically used.
Even though this trend is good for the environment, it has lost some workers jobs because of the increased cost of production when using the more energy efficient methods. In addition to that factor, decoupling is easier in smaller economies rather than large economies and often just moves the emission filled manufacturing to developing nations. Finally, decoupling often shifts economies to non-manufacturing industries which can lead to greater income inequality as well.
I think it’s imperative that we begin to address climate change as an issue. Even if there are negative effects, I believe that they are necessary to create a sustainable environment for ourselves and future generations.
It is very interesting to see that this is the first time in forty years that emissions plateaued with an increase in global GDP. And though the article states that this trend is good for the environment, some jobs have been lost. I wonder if there is any way to decrease the cost of production and enable more employees to work? Overall, I do agree that climate change does need to be addressed as a serious issue and I'm interested to see how our nation handles upcoming issues.
ReplyDelete