Editing Economic growth (section)

===Global warming===
{{see also|Economics of global warming}}

Up to the present, there is a close correlation between economic growth and the rate of [[carbon dioxide emissions]] across nations, although there is also a considerable divergence in [[carbon intensity]] (carbon emissions per GDP).<ref>Stern Review, Part III Stabilization. Table 7.1 p. 168</ref> Up to the present, there is also a direct relation between global economic wealth and the rate of global emissions.<ref name="Garrett 2011">{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1007/s10584-009-9717-9| title = Are there basic physical constraints on future anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide?| journal = Climatic Change| volume = 104| issue = 3–4| page = 437| year = 2009| last1 = Garrett | first1 = T. J. | arxiv = 0811.1855| s2cid = 5287353}}</ref> The [[Stern Review]] notes that the prediction that, "Under business as usual, global emissions will be sufficient to propel greenhouse gas concentrations to over 550 ppm {{CO2}} by 2050 and over 650–700 ppm by the end of this century is robust to a wide range of changes in model assumptions." The scientific consensus is that planetary ecosystem functioning without incurring dangerous risks requires stabilization at 450–550 ppm.<ref>Stern Review Economics of Climate Change. Part III Stabilization p. 183</ref>

As a consequence, growth-oriented environmental economists propose government intervention into switching sources of energy production, favouring [[wind power|wind]], [[solar power|solar]], [[hydroelectric]], and [[Nuclear power|nuclear]]. This would largely confine use of fossil fuels to either domestic cooking needs (such as for kerosene burners) or where [[carbon capture and storage]] technology can be cost-effective and reliable.<ref>{{cite book |last=Jaccard |first=M. |year=2005 |title=Sustainable Fossil Fuels |location=New York |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-67979-4 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/sustainablefossi0000jacc }}</ref> The [[Stern Review]], published by the United Kingdom Government in 2006, concluded that an investment of 1% of GDP (later changed to 2%) would be sufficient to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk climate-related costs equal to 20% of GDP. Because carbon capture and storage are as yet widely unproven, and its long term effectiveness (such as in containing carbon dioxide 'leaks') unknown, and because of current costs of alternative fuels, these policy responses largely rest on faith of technological change.

British conservative politician and journalist [[Nigel Lawson]] has deemed [[carbon emission trading]] an 'inefficient system of [[rationing]]'. Instead, he favours [[carbon tax]]es to make full use of the efficiency of the market. However, in order to avoid the migration of energy-intensive industries, the whole world should impose such a tax, not just Britain, Lawson pointed out. There is no point in taking the lead if nobody follows suit.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/jtclimate/170/7051604.htm|title=Examination of Witnesses (Questions 32–39)|date=16 May 2007|access-date=2007-11-29}}</ref>