"Fundamentally, I believe the system is deterministic," says Garrett. "Changes in population and standard of living are only a function of the current energy efficiency. That leaves only switching to a non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power source as an available option."
"The problem is that, in order to stabilize emissions, not even reduce them, we have to switch to non-carbonized energy sources at a rate about 2.1 percent per year. That comes out to almost one new nuclear power plant per day."
"If society invests sufficient resources into alternative and new, non-carbon energy supplies, then perhaps it can continue growing without increasing global warming," Garrett says.
Does Garrett fear global warming deniers will use his work to justify inaction?"No," he says. "Ultimately, it's not clear that policy decisions have the capacity to change the future course of civilization."
First off, power plants only last about 50 years. Meaning, we
already replace around 2.1% of our existing energy infrastructure every year.
Moreover, a new nuclear power plant costs $2 billion. $2 billion/day would be around $700 billion a year.
That's a big number but it's not an impossible number. If the US health care system spent as much money per capita as the Canadian system, it would free up more than a trillion dollars a year.
The world spends $2.4 trillion a year on oil at $80/barrel. The fuel savings from switching from a coal/gas power grid to a nuclear/renewable power grid would pay for a large share of the bill.
We don't need more wealth, we just need to redirect existing wealth into more productive enterprises.
Don't get too gloomy.