[Changleen]

Very good article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096594.stm

Report's stark warning on climate

The Stern Review says that climate change represents the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen. And on the basis of this intellectually rigorous and thorough report, it is hard to disagree.

Sir Nicholas Stern, a distinguished development economist and former chief economist at the World Bank, is not a man given to hyperbole.

Yet he says "our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th Century".

His report gives prescriptions for how to minimise this economic and social disruption.

His central argument is that spending large sums of money now on measures to reduce carbon emissions will bring dividends on a colossal scale. It would be wholly irrational, therefore, not to spend this money.

However, he warns that we are too late to prevent any deleterious consequences from climate change.

The prospects are worst for Africa and developing countries, so the richer nations must provide them with financial and technological help to prepare and adapt.

Tough decisions

He believes it is practical to aim for a stabilisation of greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere of 500 to 550 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2050 - which is double pre-industrial levels and compares with 430ppm today. But even stabilising at that level will probably mean significant climate change.


For 150 years, we've pumped carbon into the atmosphere - whether through energy or transport - as if it had no price
David Milliband, Environment Secretary

'High cost' of climate change

Even to stabilise at that level, emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) would need to be cut by an average of three-quarters by 2050 - a frightening statistic.

As well as decarbonising the power sector by 60%-70%, there will also have to be an end to deforestation - emissions from deforestation are estimated at more than 18% of global emissions, more than transport. And there will have to be deep cuts in emissions from transport.

The costs of these changes should be around 1% of global GDP by 2050 - in other words the world would be 1% poorer than we would otherwise have been, which would be significant but far from prohibitive.

To be clear, this does not mean we would be 1% poorer than we are today, but that global growth will be slower.

The way to look at this 1% is as an investment. Because the costs of not taking this action are mind-bogglingly large.

Rising estimates

Sir Nicholas Stern's start point is economic modelling carried out in other studies showing that a scenario of 2-3 degrees of warming would lead to a permanent loss of up to 3% in global world output, compared to what would have happened without climate change. But he says those estimates are too low.

He believes 5-6 degrees of warming is a "real possibility" for the next century.

Having fed the probabilities of the various different degrees of global warming into his economic model, he estimates that "business as usual" would lead to a permanent reduction in global per-capita consumption of at least 5%.

But, that estimate does not include the financial cost of the direct impact on human health and the environment from global warming, or the disproportionate costs on poor regions of the world.

It also ignores so-called "feedback mechanisms", which may mean that as the stock of greenhouse gases increases there is a disproportionate rise in warming with each new increment in emissions.

Unfair burden

Putting all these factors together, he comes up with the stark conclusion that if we do nothing to stem climate change, there could be a permanent reduction in consumption per head of 20%.

In other words, everyone in the world would be a fifth poorer than they would otherwise have been.

Even worse, these costs will not be shared evenly. There will be a disproportionate burden on the poorest countries.

So here's the winning formula: Stern says spend 1% of world GDP to be 20% richer than we will otherwise be. It looks like a no-brainer.

There is another way of presenting this analysis of benefits versus costs.

Stern says that if you take the present value (the value in today's money) of the benefits over the coming years of taking action to stabilise greenhouse gases by 2050, then deduct the costs, you end up with a "profit" of $2.5 trillion (£1.32 trillion).

Any way you look at it, the financial case for tackling climate change looks watertight.

Hurdles

That said, there are great impediments to harvesting this dividend.

One is the obvious problem, which is that it requires collective, coordinated action by most of the world's governments - and securing the requisite consensus on the way forward will not be simple.


We should prepare for a whole series of shocks from the effects of climate change that are already unavoidable
Robert Peston, BBC Business Editor

In the interests of fairness, Stern argues that the richer countries should take responsibility for between 60% and 80% of reductions in emissions from 1990 levels by 2050.

But assuming that consensus is reached, what is the best way to correct the grotesque market failure that is currently taking us on a path to poverty? How do we start to pay a price for carbon that reflects its true economic and social costs, or a price that includes the present value of future climate change?

There are two main ways of achieving this.

One is through taxation. The other is through rationing the amount of carbon emissions that any business - or any individual - can make, and then creating a proper global market.

Such a move would allow any business or institution that wants to emit more than its entitlement to buy that right, and any business that emits less than its entitlement to sell the unused portion of its entitlement - effectively carbon trading.

Another imperative for governments is to encourage research and development on low-carbon technologies.

Governments must also encourage "behavioural change", through regulation - such as imposing tighter standards on the energy efficiency of buildings - as well as educating the public about the true costs of wasting energy.

Trouble ahead

That said, we should prepare for a whole series of shocks from the effects of climate change that are already unavoidable.

There will probably be both more droughts and more floods. An increased incidence of devastating storms is expected. And there is an increased risk of famine in the poorest countries.

So we must start to get better at monitoring of climate conditions - and adapt ourselves for the new world.

That means reinforcing buildings and infrastructure to make them sturdier in the face of extreme weather conditions, investment in new dykes, and support for financial markets so that it is possible to purchase insurance against climate-related disaster.

It will all be very expensive, disproportionately so for developing countries. So Stern argues, and it's hard to disagree, that there is a strong moral obligation on the richer countries to help the poorest ones protect themselves against the very worst that may transpire.

 

[rockwool]

I don't doubt that one second. Hopefully his merits will give his words some credibility, and he will not be seen as another of them leftist/green doomsday crazies. But I doubt that. ****'s gotta hit the fan reeeal hard on home turf before the western world will act radically enough.

Not that I care, I'll be dead by 2050 or so, I just want higher dividend now.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

there is one bit that kinda throws everything out of the window... do someone really has the power to decide where 1% of the WORLD´s gdp will be spent?????????????

 

[rockwool]

No. But it is not the consern of just one or a few nations, it's the whole world, so it should be brought up at the UN. I don't want to see a world government, absolutely not, but this thing should be their first consern in the next few months.

 

[Changleen]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103000636.html

White House nods at British climate change report

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent
Reuters
Monday, October 30, 2006; 4:13 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Monday gave a nod to a British report urging action on global warming but one environmentalist said the Bush administration goals on climate change amount to business as usual.

The report by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern said immediate international action to stabilize the greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming would have economic benefits that would far outweigh the costs.

In an e-mailed statement, the White House Council on Environmental Quality said, "The U.S. government has produced an abundance of economic analysis on the issue of climate change. The Stern Report is another contribution to that effort."

The statement from spokeswoman Kristen Hellmer said the United States is "well on track to meet the president's goal to reduce greenhouse gas intensity of our economy 18 percent by 2012."

The problem, said Annie Petsonk of Environmental Defense, is that this goal essentially requires only the status quo.

"This is just business as usual for this economy," Petsonk said by telephone. "The result is no reduction in America's total greenhouse gas emissions."

The United States is the biggest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, producing 25 percent of greenhouse gases from 5 percent of the global population.

"The United Kingdom is moving forward, the EU is moving forward, the developing countries are moving forward, where is the United States?" Petsonk said.

CAN-DO VS CAN'T DO

Britain is pushing for a framework outside the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement that sought to limit greenhouse gas emissions, that would include the United States and such major developing countries as China and India.

President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of the Kyoto agreement in part because he said it hit jobs.

Stern's report estimates that stabilizing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cost about 1 percent of annual global output by 2050. Inaction could cut global consumption per person by between 5 and 20 percent, the report said.

"If the Bush administration is truly on board with this then I think they need to put their money where their mouth is," said Brian Castelli, executive vice president of the Alliance to Save Energy, whose members include U.S. power companies.

Castelli said there must be more investment in energy-efficient technologies, but added that U.S. government budgets for this have dropped by 34 percent since 2002, from $694 million to $517 million budgeted for fiscal 2007, which amounts to about $460 million in 2002 dollars, factoring in inflation.

"How are we going to square up the fact that we need more research, development and deployment dollars through the administration and the fact that they're on board with what the Stern report says (about) deploying those technologies?" Castelli said by telephone.

Dave Hamilton of the environmental group Sierra Club contrasted the Stern review with the White House message.

"We can actually make money by changing our tune here" to limit greenhouse gas emissions, Hamilton said in a telephone interview. "We can do it in a cost-effective way, we can do it in a way that improves our technology ... This is a very can-do report, when what we've heard from the White House is what we can't do."

 

[rockwool]

In an e-mailed statement, the White House Council on Environmental Quality said, "The U.S. government has produced an abundance of economic analysis on the issue of climate change. The Stern Report is another contribution to that effort."

The statement from spokeswoman Kristen Hellmer said the United States is "well on track to meet the president's goal to reduce greenhouse gas intensity of our economy 18 percent by 2012."

Meaning: "It's not what we do but what we say that is important".

President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of the Kyoto agreement in part because he said it hit jobs.

"If the Bush administration is truly on board with this then I think they need to put their money where their mouth is," said Brian Castelli

Somebody better ask dubya if he's an American or an American't.

 

[manimal]

can we just have our newkular holowcost and do away with all of these silly projections! if we make it to 2025 w/out some major catastrophy i'll be very surprised.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

somewhat fitting for the ocassion, and my disbelief in the "5 guys run the world" story.

Nothing bugs me more than when someone is more cynical than I am. I generally try to occupy the upper limit of cynicism just short of where the kooky conspiracy theory people get their mail. So when I see huge numbers of people eclipse me in that area, I know it’s time to recalibrate.

The viewpoint that has me doubting the sufficiency of my cynicism is the notion that the war in Iraq is primarily to profit American oil companies, military manufacturers and of course Halliburton. As a professional cynic, I LOVE that idea. I want to believe it. But you have to help me connect the dots.

For example, are there actual meetings where the oil barons and the Whitehouse staff sit around sipping brandy and smoking cigars and deciding to kill a million people so they can finally afford nice things? If so, how does that conversation go?

Oil Baron 1: “Let’s start a war and kill a million people so I can afford a new boat.”

Oil Baron 2: “You already have a boat with its own helicopter pad, football stadium, and whore house.”

Oil Baron 1: “That thing is a year old! It embarrasses me.”

Oil Baron 3: “Didn’t your brother-in-law just join the National Guard? He might get killed if we start a war.”

Oil Baron 1: “Are you even listening to me? I said my boat is way too old!!!”

Or is it more of a subtle thing where everyone acts in ways that will lead to war and line their pockets, but in their own minds the blame for war is spread so evenly that they don’t feel any personal guilt?

Oil Baron 1: “Well, let’s see, there were about 1,000 of us top industrialists who caused this war, and 1,000,000 people died, so that’s only 1,000 deaths on each of our hands.”

Oil Baron 2: “That’s not so bad. I almost worked for a tobacco company.”

And I wonder why I’ve never met anyone in person who is that evil. I’ve met plenty of psychos, assholes, narcissists, pigs, sluts, maniacs, drug addicts – you name it. All of the other personality defects you can imagine are abundant. But not once have I been in a conversation with someone who said, “You know, I’d be willing to kill a million men, women, and children if the money was good.”

But I suppose that’s the sort of thought you’d keep to yourself.

 

[DaveW]

Hey Chang, you going along to this thing next week?
I will be, looks quite interesting.

Harry Kroto: Science, Society and Sustainability

Noble prize winner Harry Kroto will hold a lecture that will explore numerous aspects of science. What science is, how others - the Media, politicians, the community and commercial agents perceive science and scientists and some of the problems that non-scientists have in understanding Science, Engineering and Technology (SET).

 

[Changleen]

Maybe, looks cool, but I'm going to see 'An Inconvenient Truth' at the Velodrome tonight.

 

[N8 v2.0]

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Is this the appropriate time to post this?

STFU

 

[BurlyShirley]

It's funny. I was just watching a documentary on Natl. Geographic about climate change and antarctic melting specifically. Scary stuff. Amazing all that data they have and then n8 posts a pic of chicken little. So what's worse? A chicken little or an ostrich with its head in the sand?
I can say that I have been in no way assured that all the data Ive read or seen isnt slanted in one way or another, but on the other hand, I havent actually seen any data from the opposition. Sorry, but numbers just do it for me. Maybe if I read my bible Id think a little more logically.

 

[DaveW]

Maybe, looks cool, but I'm going to see 'An Inconvenient Truth' at the Velodrome tonight.

Yeah thought about that, but am instead going to Listen to Chris DiBona from google and others talk about Digital Democracy irate2:

 

[$tinkle]

as for this whole "cost & benefits" thing, this is where capitalism thrives*



*where "thrives" is zero-sum gain, so watch your backs, brownies

 

[Changleen]

*where "thrives" is zero-sum gain,

Wrong.

 

[bac]

I still believe my president.