UK warns: Climate change could cause a worldwide recession
Comments
-
polaris wrote:anyways - for the most part (for sure i could do better), i do base my consumer decisions on the environmental and social costs ... i hear what many of you guys are saying but to be honest ... if it really mattered to folks - they would find out that info on their own ...
Good for you. I don't do this nearly enough.
That being said, you hit the nail on the head...'if it really mattered'...it doesn't. So you have ot figure out a way to make it very easy and accessible to understand the facts. It's even okay to display the potential outcomes if you point them all out, but mainly the facts.hippiemom = goodness0 -
Obi Once wrote:If car A cost more than car B, merely because of higher gas consumption. I presume u could have thought of that.
But all he's learned is that you've made car A cost more than car B.
If you want the consumer to learn that car A costs more than car B because of gas consumption, make consumer pay for the gas. And he already does that. What scares you is that he doesn't care. And that's why you should realize that your taxes aren't going to change anything.0 -
cincybearcat wrote:1) it is fear mongering to claim the collapse of the economy due to global warming...it's always been fear mongering on every issue...
2) I never said a company would charge 'true cost' without some regulation.
A side-benefit of charging the true cost, would be that products shipped from far away would have a significantly higher enviro-cost...making local goods more competitive. Would be a very interesting model to see.
well ... i guess if we take the literal meaning of the words - sure, but to me cutting back on civil liberties because of terrorists is not the same as reducing carbon emissions because of climate change ... but that is just my bias ...
this is like the conversation i had with my mom ... she was raving about this scarf she bought for a few bucks (can't remember exactly) she was saying that they sell for way more ... and i said - well, if you pay someone 5 cents a day (exaggerating) then u can sell it for $9 ... if u bought something made in canada - you're also paying for someone to live a certain standard of living ... she didn't really appreciate it but wtf ... this is what i keep talking about ... until we start making decisions that benefit the whole versus just the us ... we won't get anywhere ...0 -
polaris wrote:well ... i guess if we take the literal meaning of the words - sure, but to me cutting back on civil liberties because of terrorists is not the same as reducing carbon emissions because of climate change ... but that is just my bias ...
Haha...you crack me up...it's more comparable to the government adding costs (taxes) to products because of climate change...either way, the individual is sacrificing something for the greater good.hippiemom = goodness0 -
farfromglorified wrote:But all he's learned is that you've made car A cost more than car B.
And surferdude the $50 water is not based on a tax, but on the idea that drinkable / sweet (does that translate correct?) water will run out in time as the temparature rises.your light's reflected now0 -
Obi Once wrote:and that car A will save him money in the long run because of lower consumption.
Unless of course he cares about something more than gas consumption in a car.Tax the fuel extra and u'll double the bonus.
Hehe....how nice of you. Isn't that like saying that the state that only sanctions torture is "doubling the bonus" of the state that kills its citizens indiscriminately?
You can either embrace choice or you may attack it, but you cannot do both. If you don't like the choices people are making you may simply force them onto your path by destroying their ability to choose. But then please don't complain about people making bad choices in the future. You gave up that right when you decided that people didn't need to learn how to choose.0 -
The day that changed the climate
By Colin Brown and Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 31 October 2006
Climate change has been made the world's biggest priority, with the publication of a stark report showing that the planet faces catastrophe unless urgent measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Future generations may come to regard the apocalyptic report by Sir Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank, as the turning point in combating global warming, or as the missed opportunity.
As well as producing a catastrophic vision of hundreds of millions fleeing flooding and drought, Sir Nicholas suggests that the cost of inaction could be a permanent loss of 20 per cent of global output.
That equates to a figure of £3.68 trillion - while to act quickly would cost the equivalent of £184bn annually, 1 per cent of world GDP.
Across the world, environmental groups hailed the report as the beginning of a new era on climate change, but the White House maintained an ominous silence. However, the report laid down a challenge to the US, and other major emerging economies including China and India, that British ministers said cannot be ignored.
Its recommendations are based on stabilising carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere at between 450 and 550 parts per million - which would still require a cut of at least 25 per cent in global emissions, rising to 60 per cent for the wealthy nations.
It accepts that even with a very strong expansion of renewable energy sources, fossil fuels could still account for more than half of global energy supplies by 2050.
Presenting the findings in London, Tony Blair said the 700-page document was the "most important report on the future" published by his Government. Green campaigners said that at last the world had woken up to the dangers they had been warning about for years.
Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, and likely next Prime Minister, assumed the task of leading the world in persuading the sceptics in the US, China and India to accept the need for global co-operation to avert the threat of a global catastrophe. He has enlisted Al Gore, the former presidential candidate turned green evangelist, to sell the message in the United States, with Sir Nicholas.
While the Bush administration refused to be drawn on the report, US environmental groups seized on it to demand a major change in policy. "The President needs to stop hiding behind his opposition to the Kyoto protocol and lay a new position on the table," said the National Environmental Trust, in Washington. The Washington Post said in an editorial that it was "hard to imagine" that the "intransigence" of the administration would long survive its tenure. "Will [Mr Bush] take a hand in developing America's response to this global problem," it asked, "Or will he go down as the President who fiddled while Greenland melted?"
Sir Nicholas's report contained little that was scientifically new. But British ministers are hoping his hard-headed economic analysis will be enough to persuade the doubters in the White House to curb America's profligate use of carbon energy.
In the Commons, Environment Secretary, David Miliband, confirmed that ministers were drawing up a Climate Change Bill, which would enshrine in law the Government's long-term target of reducing carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. But he declined to go into any detail.
Mr Blair said the consequences for the planet of inaction were "literally disastrous".
"This disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction future many years ahead, but in our lifetime," he said. "We can't wait the five years it took to negotiate Kyoto - we simply don't have the time. We accept we have to go further [than Kyoto]."
Sir Nicholas told BBC radio: "Unless it's international, we will not make the reductions on the scale which will be required."
Pia Hansen, of the European Commission, said the report "clearly makes a case for action".
"Climate change is not a problem Europe can afford to put into the 'too difficult' pile," she said. "It is not an option to wait and see, and we must act now."
Charlie Kronick, of Greenpeace, said the report was "the final piece in the jigsaw" in the case for action to reduce emissions. "There are no more excuses left, no more smokescreens to hide behind, now everybody has to back action to slash emissions, regardless of party or ideology," he said.
The CBI director general Richard Lambert said a global system of emissions trading was now urgently needed as a "nucleus" for effective action. "Provided we act with sufficient speed, we will not have to make a choice between averting climate change and promoting growth and investment."
Climate change has been made the world's biggest priority, with the publication of a stark report showing that the planet faces catastrophe unless urgent measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Future generations may come to regard the apocalyptic report by Sir Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank, as the turning point in combating global warming, or as the missed opportunity.
As well as producing a catastrophic vision of hundreds of millions fleeing flooding and drought, Sir Nicholas suggests that the cost of inaction could be a permanent loss of 20 per cent of global output.
That equates to a figure of £3.68 trillion - while to act quickly would cost the equivalent of £184bn annually, 1 per cent of world GDP.
Across the world, environmental groups hailed the report as the beginning of a new era on climate change, but the White House maintained an ominous silence. However, the report laid down a challenge to the US, and other major emerging economies including China and India, that British ministers said cannot be ignored.
Its recommendations are based on stabilising carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere at between 450 and 550 parts per million - which would still require a cut of at least 25 per cent in global emissions, rising to 60 per cent for the wealthy nations.
It accepts that even with a very strong expansion of renewable energy sources, fossil fuels could still account for more than half of global energy supplies by 2050.
Presenting the findings in London, Tony Blair said the 700-page document was the "most important report on the future" published by his Government. Green campaigners said that at last the world had woken up to the dangers they had been warning about for years.
Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, and likely next Prime Minister, assumed the task of leading the world in persuading the sceptics in the US, China and India to accept the need for global co-operation to avert the threat of a global catastrophe. He has enlisted Al Gore, the former presidential candidate turned green evangelist, to sell the message in the United States, with Sir Nicholas.
While the Bush administration refused to be drawn on the report, US environmental groups seized on it to demand a major change in policy. "The President needs to stop hiding behind his opposition to the Kyoto protocol and lay a new position on the table," said the National Environmental Trust, in Washington. The Washington Post said in an editorial that it was "hard to imagine" that the "intransigence" of the administration would long survive its tenure. "Will [Mr Bush] take a hand in developing America's response to this global problem," it asked, "Or will he go down as the President who fiddled while Greenland melted?"
Sir Nicholas's report contained little that was scientifically new. But British ministers are hoping his hard-headed economic analysis will be enough to persuade the doubters in the White House to curb America's profligate use of carbon energy.
In the Commons, Environment Secretary, David Miliband, confirmed that ministers were drawing up a Climate Change Bill, which would enshrine in law the Government's long-term target of reducing carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. But he declined to go into any detail.
Mr Blair said the consequences for the planet of inaction were "literally disastrous".
"This disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction future many years ahead, but in our lifetime," he said. "We can't wait the five years it took to negotiate Kyoto - we simply don't have the time. We accept we have to go further [than Kyoto]."
Sir Nicholas told BBC radio: "Unless it's international, we will not make the reductions on the scale which will be required."
Pia Hansen, of the European Commission, said the report "clearly makes a case for action".
"Climate change is not a problem Europe can afford to put into the 'too difficult' pile," she said. "It is not an option to wait and see, and we must act now."
Charlie Kronick, of Greenpeace, said the report was "the final piece in the jigsaw" in the case for action to reduce emissions. "There are no more excuses left, no more smokescreens to hide behind, now everybody has to back action to slash emissions, regardless of party or ideology," he said.
The CBI director general Richard Lambert said a global system of emissions trading was now urgently needed as a "nucleus" for effective action. "Provided we act with sufficient speed, we will not have to make a choice between averting climate change and promoting growth and investment."0 -
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Published: 31 October 2006
What is the Stern report, and what's so special about it?
It is the first really comprehensive review of the economics of climate change. For nearly 20 years it has been the science of climate change that has made all the headlines, as the world gradually realised that the continuing accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere was causing global temperatures to rise remorselessly. We have heard about disappearing glaciers, catastrophic floods and fatal heatwaves, and we have heard of dire predictions of worse to come in the future. We've heard a thousand calls to action, to stop global warming happening. But what would that cost the world? And what would doing nothing cost us? Hitherto, no one had any real idea. But now Sir Nicholas Stern and his team have come up with concrete numbers.
Does the report have a key conclusion?
Yes. That although dealing with global warming by cutting emissions of greenhouse gases will cost a lot of money - about 1 per cent of the world's gross domestic product, trillions of dollars - doing nothing about it will cost the world an awful lot more, anything from five to 20 times more. We face losing up to a fifth of the world's wealth from unmitigated climate change, says the review - if unchecked, it will devastate the global economy on the scale of the Great Depression or the 20th century's world wars.
Why is that conclusion important?
Crucially, because the world's leading climate change sceptics, which comprise the Republican business community in the United States and the Bush administration which so faithfully reflects their views, are against acting to prevent climate change by cutting carbon emissions on the grounds that to do so would damage the US economy. And as the Americans, who have 4 per cent of the world's population, produce nearly a quarter of all the world's greenhouse gases, any effort to fight climate change without them is doomed to failure. The Stern Review says, quite simply, that not acting is actually the much more expensive option. The US will be hit as much as anywhere else.
Will the American sceptics listen to that?
George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Jubilation T Cornpone from the Republican National Committee are not going to go down on their knees and admit they were wrong, no. Or at least, not overnight. But the report cannot but have a very widespread and steadily growing influence, partly because of its scope and detail - it is 600 pages long and feels like a doorstep - and also because Sir Nicholas Stern is an immensely prestigious figure. He is not only the head of the Government Economic Service in the UK, he is a former chief economist of the World Bank in Washington. He is an economist, not an environmentalist.
What else does the report tell us that's important?
Another absolutely vital conclusion is that dealing with climate change, even though very costly, need not derail worldwide economic growth. The report stresses that the two are compatible. Major action to mitigate emissions, it says, is "fully consistent with continued growth and development". This will be very welcome to business, and to developmentalists, who for example see growth as Africa's only hope of escaping from poverty. But it will seem counter-intuitive to some more radical environmentalists, who have long contended that the world's remorseless pursuit of ever more riches cannot go hand in hand with solving the world's greatest environmental problem. The "deep greens" feel the way forward is for a different type of economic system based on sufficiency rather than growth. But politicians will be the most relieved of all at the Stern conclusion - Mr Blair made this quite clear yesterday. Where dealing with climate is concerned, the thrust of the Stern Review is this: out goes sackcloth and ashes, in comes having your cake and eating it (as long as you take the problem seriously, now).0 -
farfromglorified wrote:Unless of course he cares about something more than gas consumption in a car.farfromglorified wrote:Hehe....how nice of you. Isn't that like saying that the state that only sanctions torture is "doubling the bonus" of the state that kills its citizens indiscriminately?farfromglorified wrote:You can either embrace choice or you may attack it, but you cannot do both. If you don't like the choices people are making you may simply force them onto your path by destroying their ability to choose. But then please don't complain about people making bad choices in the future. You gave up that right when you decided that people didn't need to learn how to choose.your light's reflected now0
-
thanks for the post, really!
It was all over the news here as well, discussed as a FACT!!!
and I was thinking:
wow, since 5 years I am calling out for attention, doing all to reduce my personal food print.
since 3 years I am writing my opinion down here, at this place,
trying to spread more attention.
and FINALLY it is taken as a fact and all over the media,
all over, just, at least here in Europe.
so thanks UK, that was a good job to reach even the big world....
finally Mr. Blairthere is no way to peace, peace is the way!
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.0 -
I appreciate what the guy has done with his report by raising awareness. But you don't really help the cause by fear-mongering.
A carbon based tax will not help the environment all that much. Energy conservation will not help the environment all that much.
Innovation in sources of energy is the only thing going to help the environment. You can't force innovation and it's a pretty hard thing to speed up. The only thing any government can do to help innovation is to give away money to researchers. No European country is doing that much about it though. As much as people hate to hear it but big business will lead the way in tackling climate change. Governmemnts have shown time and time again that they are inept at tackling problems.“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley0 -
surferdude wrote:I appreciate what the guy has done with his report by raising awareness. But you don't really help the cause by fear-mongering.
A carbon based tax will not help the environment all that much. Energy conservation will not help the environment all that much.
Innovation in sources of energy is the only thing going to help the environment. You can't force innovation and it's a pretty hard thing to speed up. The only thing any government can do to help innovation is to give away money to researchers. No European country is doing that much about it though. As much as people hate to hear it but big business will lead the way in tackling climate change. Governmemnts have shown time and time again that they are inept at tackling problems.
So we're fucked then!0 -
Byrnzie wrote:So we're fucked then!
Business has solved just about every problem we've run across so far. I can't think of a single innovation by the government, other than new ways to waste money.“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley0 -
surferdude wrote:Why?
Business has solved just about every problem we've run across so far. I can't think of a single innovation by the government, other than new ways to waste money.
Remember...business has solved the problems because their customers demanded it.
So, really, it's the people that solve the problems.hippiemom = goodness0 -
cincybearcat wrote:Remember...business has solved the problems because their customers demanded it.
So, really, it's the people that solve the problems.
But you are right, ultimately it is the consumer that has all the power. But I'm not going to fool myself into belieivng that we can sell people on conservation. People will consume more and more energy every year. The key is where that energy comes from.“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley0 -
surferdude wrote:Why?
Business has solved just about every problem we've run across so far. I can't think of a single innovation by the government, other than new ways to waste money.
are you serious??
has business cured cancer? does business fix traffic congestion? ... does business fix respiratory illnesses in children? ... i don't think so - i do know that business causes a lot of the problems ...
businesses goal is to make money - sometimes it is done by solving problems but ultimately its goal is to make money and if it causes more problems - so be it ...0 -
polaris wrote:are you serious??
has business cured cancer? does business fix traffic congestion? ... does business fix respiratory illnesses in children? ... i don't think so - i do know that business causes a lot of the problems ...
businesses goal is to make money - sometimes it is done by solving problems but ultimately its goal is to make money and if it causes more problems - so be it ...
1) Nope, but they are working on it.
2) NOt entirely, but they have helped it considerably.
3) You do realize that medicine and medical hospital's are often private businesses right?
When a business makes money, lots of people make money, lots of people have jobs, lots of people can support their famiies, lots of people can afford to pay for their kids college education, lots of people can retire...........
But big bad business's always at fault isn't it?hippiemom = goodness0 -
has business cured cancer? No but they are working on it. Government has yet to make a breakthrough. In fact all advances I see coming from the private sector.
does business fix traffic congestion? Traffic congestion is created by government due to their inability to plan, fund and execute. Why would we want to leave the environment up to a group of people who can't even manage the flow of traffic?
does business fix respiratory illnesses in children? ... i don't think so - i do know that business causes a lot of the problems ... I've yet to see a drug developped bythe government. Businesses play by the rules as laid out by government. If you think business causes the problem it is only because the government endorses this action through the laws of the land. Again, why would you ever turn to the government to help with the environment when they've never shown they are capable of managing anything.
businesses goal is to make money - sometimes it is done by solving problems but ultimately its goal is to make money and if it causes more problems - so be it ... And governments goal is to stay in power. I trust business a whole lot more than I trust government.
But in the end the responsibility is on the consumer.“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley0 -
cincybearcat wrote:1) Nope, but they are working on it.
2) NOt entirely, but they have helped it considerably.
3) You do realize that medicine and medical hospital's are often private businesses right?
When a business makes money, lots of people make money, lots of people have jobs, lots of people can support their famiies, lots of people can afford to pay for their kids college education, lots of people can retire...........
But big bad business's always at fault isn't it?
1. yes and no ... if you look at all the money cancer funds go - its mostly going to deal with people WITH cancer and trying to treat them ... we spend no money on cancer prevention - what about not putting chemicals in our body? ... but that would be bad for business ...
2. you know what helps traffic congestion ... car pool lanes, public transit, etc ... all gov't programs ... subsidies to business make us not pay the true cost for gas ...
3. in canada they might be private ... not sure but the majority of their funding comes from public money ...
look - is anyone saying all business is bad?? ... no, read my post ... it just says the priority for business is not the well being of everyone ... to state that business will solve the worlds problems is simply not based on any fact ...
at the end of the day - some of us believe we have a problem here ... a problem that will affect the lives of everyone now and in the future ... if we don't collectively try and fix it - it will get worse ... if that is fear mongering and you don't want to listen - so be it ... but this problem requires a solution from everyone ... not just gov'ts but business and the general populace ...0 -
surferdude wrote:has business cured cancer? No but they are working on it. Government has yet to make a breakthrough. In fact all advances I see coming from the private sector.
does business fix traffic congestion? Traffic congestion is created by government due to their inability to plan, fund and execute. Why would we want to leave the environment up to a group of people who can't even manage the flow of traffic?
does business fix respiratory illnesses in children? ... i don't think so - i do know that business causes a lot of the problems ... I've yet to see a drug developped bythe government. Businesses play by the rules as laid out by government. If you think business causes the problem it is only because the government endorses this action through the laws of the land. Again, why would you ever turn to the government to help with the environment when they've never shown they are capable of managing anything.
businesses goal is to make money - sometimes it is done by solving problems but ultimately its goal is to make money and if it causes more problems - so be it ... And governments goal is to stay in power. I trust business a whole lot more than I trust government.
But in the end the responsibility is on the consumer.
where do all the private companies get their money? ... from the gov't ... again, we could spend some money on maybe preventing cancer by not allowing businesses to pollute and use toxic substances ...
gov'ts aren't in the business of finding cures - they fund companies that are ... but ultimately, we rely on gov't to keep us safe ... they set standards for everything based on what it is they consider appropriate ... can you imagine if business were allowed to do whatever they want?? ... you'd have no advocate whatsoever ...
i don't trust either gov't or business as far as i can throw em ... but again, i will not put my faith in a model that rewards profits above everything else ...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help