UK warns: Climate change could cause a worldwide recession

Obi Once
Obi Once Posts: 918
edited November 2006 in A Moving Train
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1934886,00.html

UK signs Gore to sell climate case in US

Britain is to send the author of today's landmark review on global warming to try to win American hearts and minds to the urgent cause of cutting carbon emissions - as it emerged yesterday that the government has already signed up former US vice-president Al Gore to advise on the environment.

Sir Nicholas Stern, who this morning publishes an authoritative report on climate change warning that inaction could cause a worldwide recession as damaging as the Depression of the 1930s, will lobby politicians and business people in America at the turn of the year.

In a separate development, the environment secretary, David Miliband, said the government was discussing imposing green taxes. But the Treasury, which commissioned Sir Nicholas's study, stressed: "The key message of Stern is that international action is required ... The chancellor decides on taxes and he will do so in the pre-budget report and budget."

The government hopes the review will gain traction in the US because it focuses on the economic case for change. Sir Nicholas's analysis warns that doing nothing about climate change will cost the global economy between 5% and 20% of GDP, while reducing emissions now would cost 1%, equivalent to £184bn.

He argues that international negotiations to find a successor to the Kyoto protocol on reducing greenhouse gases must be accelerated, starting at UN talks in Nairobi next month.

The prime minister has said any such agreement needs the support of the US, which refused to join Kyoto because it said it would harm the economy. The White House said last night that it had not read the report. But Kristin Hellmer, the White House counsel on environmental quality, said: "The president has said from the beginning that climate change is a serious issue, and he is taking action on it."

She disputed charges from scientists that the administration had been hostile to the concept of global warming, and that it had set back international efforts to limit greenhouse gases by rejecting the Kyoto treaty.

Alden Meyer, director of policy and strategy with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a US group, suggested the only prospect for a policy shift before the next presidential election in 2008 would be if a delegation from the vast majority of US business - including the coal, utilities and car manufacturing industries - lobbied the White House for action. But he added of today's review: "It is a benchmark in a long process that is going to continue after the release."

Jonathan Porritt, director of the government's independent watchdog, the Sustainable Development Commission, added: "I think it is on a par with the influence of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the way in which the scientific evidence that they have marshalled has bit by bit obliged politicians to get into a much more pro-action stance on climate change."

Hopes of a political consensus on green taxes were raised yesterday as David Cameron, the Tory leader, told the BBC he would be prepared to impose taxes on aviation. His remarks followed the publication of a leaked memo from Mr Miliband urging Mr Brown to consider tough levies on flights, motoring and inefficient household appliances.
your light's reflected now
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1345678

Comments

  • darkcrow
    darkcrow Posts: 1,102
    let's hope that the US govt drops its "being green will harm our economy" excuse. More pressure needs to be put on China, India and other developing nations to use wind farms, bio fuels etc rather than building coal powerstations
  • melodious
    melodious Posts: 1,719
    heya obi,

    it's hek of nice to be on a same thread for you at last....my firned and i have been following global warming via the Guardian and we have been finding some really sad, but enlightening, or provoking articles. thank you for keeping a conscious level up....

    see ya, mi friend...


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6080074.stm
    all insanity:
    a derivitive of nature.
    nature is god
    god is love
    love is light
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061030/sc_nm/environment_coral_belize_dc_1

    *****
    In July, environmental organizations petitioned the World Heritage Committee to sanction big polluters for harming reefs in Belize and Australia and speeding the melting of glacier parks in Nepal, Peru and the Rockies.

    The United States fought the measure and the U.N. body put off labeling the sites as endangered, a title usually reserved for monuments threatened by wars.
    *****

    and this is the problem with the current model ... we put the prosperity of corporations above everything ... and also why world groups like the UN are failures if some countries dictate policy ...
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    My favorite part of the whole article "could cause". Or it "could cause" an economic boom as companies start to make eco-freindly break throughs and find ways to adapt to the changing climate.

    Polaris makes a good point about the UN. It has again shown it is completely ineffective and a waste of both time and money.

    Changes need to be made. As always consumers have the power but people keep pushing a government legislated solution. Business and consumers hold the key to battling climate change.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • Ah yes....climate change "could cause" a recession, but lord knows that "green taxes" never could, right?
  • Obi Once
    Obi Once Posts: 918
    Thanks for the links!
    surferdude wrote:
    The UN. It has again shown it is completely ineffective and a waste of both time and money.
    The UN is necessary for a number of reasons, not just war and fighting climate change, stating it is "completely ineffective and a waste of both time and money" imho is short sighted. It's a pity that the US often blocks constructive plans.
    surferdude wrote:
    Changes need to be made. As always consumers have the power but people keep pushing a government legislated solution. Business and consumers hold the key to battling climate change.
    Couldnt agree more.
    Ah yes....climate change "could cause" a recession, but lord knows that "green taxes" never could, right?
    Taxes are merely a means to an end. Something to make Joe Average (Buthole) aware that polution will end prosperity in general.
    your light's reflected now
  • Obi Once wrote:
    Taxes are merely a means to an end.

    So is murder.
    Something to make Joe Average (Buthole) aware that polution will end prosperity in general.

    And how will "Joe Average" learn such a lesson from taxation?
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    Obi Once wrote:
    Taxes are merely a means to an end. Something to make Joe Average (Buthole) aware that polution will end prosperity in general.
    Funny, I can't think of a more surefire way to end my prosperity than to tax me.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,830
    surferdude wrote:
    Funny, I can't think of a more surefire way to end my prosperity than to tax me.

    True enough, but it is also true that if environmental costs would added to the price of every product...making it more of a true cost...people would buy very differently (I know I would), the environment would be improved, and those products that are environmentally friendly would prosper.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    True enough, but it is also true that if environmental costs would added to the price of every product...making it more of a true cost...people would buy very differently (I know I would), the environment would be improved, and those products that are environmentally friendly would prosper.
    I'm all for a form of taxation paid by the consumer based on the carbon-based on environmental footprint the goods or service hace in their production and use. But this is not based on preventing an economic downturn but my attempt at given the cinsumer the ultimate power in addresing environmental issues.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,830
    surferdude wrote:
    I'm all for a form of taxation paid by the consumer based on the carbon-based on environmental footprint the goods or service hace in their production and use. But this is not based on preventing an economic downturn but my attempt at given the cinsumer the ultimate power in addresing environmental issues.


    Agree. And I think it's a good, effective way to do that. Of course, the contraversy comes when determining the environmental costof products, especially improted products where you might not have all the info you need. I gues syou could require certain info before allowing a product into the States.

    This would make a large segment of the population pretty pissed off though, and it would also hurt the poor the most of course.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • flywallyfly
    flywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    True enough, but it is also true that if environmental costs would added to the price of every product...making it more of a true cost...people would buy very differently (I know I would), the environment would be improved, and those products that are environmentally friendly would prosper.

    I couldnt agree more. Very well put.
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,830
    where are the people complainng about 'Fear Mongering' here?

    See, everyone deos it, on every issue.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Obi Once
    Obi Once Posts: 918
    surferdude wrote:
    Funny, I can't think of a more surefire way to end my prosperity than to tax me.
    How about $50 for a bottle of clean water?
    And how will "Joe Average" learn such a lesson from taxation?
    If car A cost more than car B, merely because of higher gas consumption. I presume u could have thought of that.
    your light's reflected now
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    Obi Once wrote:
    How about $50 for a bottle of clean water?
    I'd like to see how you could back a $50 botle of water based on any carbon or enviro type tax. Most people already pay for water via water meters and property taxes.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • miller8966
    miller8966 Posts: 1,450
    o yay here comes al gore to save the day!
    America...the greatest Country in the world.
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    where are the people complaining about 'Fear Mongering' here?
    Of course this is a type of fear mongering. Pretty much any negative article that is based on "could cause" is fear mongering. That's why I made fun of it in my first post. After the Republicans and Democrats the worst fear mongerers are climate change warriors.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    miller8966 wrote:
    o yay here comes al gore to save the day!
    Well hey, he did invent the internet. So saving the planet should be relatively easy.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    fear mongering?? ... whatever ... we are already seeing the effects of climate change in the arctic ... they are dealing with the problems right now ...

    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 ...

    we have to look at practical solutions - no company is ever gonna charge the "true cost" for their product unless some regulatory board forces them too ... its as simple as that ... profit and answering to shareholders drives the economic model not sustainability or environmental neutrality ...
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,830
    polaris wrote:
    fear mongering?? ... whatever ... we are already seeing the effects of climate change in the arctic ... they are dealing with the problems right now ...

    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 ...

    we have to look at practical solutions - no company is ever gonna charge the "true cost" for their product unless some regulatory board forces them too ... its as simple as that ... profit and answering to shareholders drives the economic model not sustainability or environmental neutrality ...

    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.
    hippiemom = goodness