Economist: Global warming will be costly

[swag]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003327491_warming28.html

By Thomas Wagner

The Associated Press

LONDON — A comprehensive report on the global economic cost of climate change, to be released by the British government Monday, is expected to be the world's most serious effort to quantify the long-term effect of doing nothing.

The Independent newspaper reported Friday that the long-awaited review would say global warming could cost the world's economies up to 20 percent of their gross domestic product if urgent action is not taken to stop floods, storms and natural catastrophes.

Author Sir Nicholas Stern met privately with Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Cabinet ministers Thursday to brief them about his findings. Stern, a government adviser on climate change, is a former chief economist of the World Bank.

Quoting unidentified officials at the briefing, The Independent said Stern warned the world would have to pay 1 percent of its annual gross domestic product now to avert catastrophe but that doing nothing could later cost five to 20 times that amount.

"Business as usual will derail growth," the paper quoted Stern as saying as he briefed the government on his 700-page report, covering a period up to the year 2100.

. . . more

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. But since global warming is a liberal lie, we don't need to listen to "scientists"

and other people who deal in "facts", and, seriously, what does the former chief economist of the World Bank know about economics? I'm thinking I'll trust someone like Falwell or Dobson about economic truths far, far before I'll trust some ivy league (or in his case, Oxford or Cambridge) intellectual elitist.

[swag]

11. Michael Crichton will tell us what to do!

[Tellurian]

22. Cheney will tell us what not to do, because corps will lose money!!

But the corps can afford to lose money (on paper), they will just pass the cost onto the consumer..

Voila, problem solved@

[applegrove]

2. I've been told by freepers..not to "scapegoat" the CO2 and blame

polution on any (one) reason. Scapegoating is not right they claim. I never knew the scientific method was scapegoating..but I suppose if you drink the juice long enough.. up is down.

[Lisa]

3. yeah -- I guess they also don't want us to "scapegoat" CFCs

... for destroying the ozone layer, or asbestos for causing cancer. (That latter one is actually coming true -- my own country of Canada recently challenged France's ban on asbestos, alleging that it prevented them from exporting the dangerous stuff and making a profit from it!)

[applegrove]

12. Didn't know Canada was doing that. Ew! I'm Canadian too. I think with

the environment the big corporations are just doing what big tabacco did. Playing for time. They know it is up and the truth will mean harsh emission standards..but as long as they can put that day off..the more money they make. And with Bonus to chief executives based on annual profits..there is no point for them to look into the future and feel anything.

But I think the truth is becoming clear. Just hope it happens before the Jet Stream disappears.

Surely Canada would only reccommend aspestos be used in safe ways? Not as insulation. But in enclosed units or such?

[Lisa]

14. well, they got their wish with Harper's "Clean Air Act"

They have admitted that there is a problem, in the hope of turning aside environmental criticism I suppose -- but they have put off doing anything serious about it for a generation. Even the National Post cover page slammed them for that. I cringe whenever I see the "Clean Air" name, since it's probably meant to reassure people and to ride the coattails of the US Clean Air Act -- but it's much weaker and less comprehensive. I believe you're right about them just stalling ... the researchers I work with were fuming about that.


Here's some more info on the asbestos thing. I don't think we recommended specific handling standards, only argued that it was safe with "adequate safety measures". France argued that there were safer alternatives to using asbestos at all. I guess there's another issue with us trying to use the WTO to overturn health and safety laws set inside another country (and we protested when the US tried to do that with our ban on that gasoline additive a while back).
"Throughout the dispute, Canada has argued that France's outright ban is not based on adequate science and that the ban is contrary to international trade rules. The Canadian government has also argued that chrysotile asbestos is safer than many alternative products, and that it is perfectly safe to use and install if adequate safety measures are taken. Canada also contends that other uses of the asbestos -- such as incorporating the fibres into asbestos cement -- are safe.
The EU argues that asbestos claims the lives of about 2,000 people in France each year. The EU also conducted a risk assessment of using asbestos in cement, and found that other fibres pose less of a health risk. According to trade officials, the five scientific experts consulted by the panel unanimously agreed with the EU that chrysotile asbestos is carcinogenic and dangerous to human health."

http://www.ictsd.org/html/weekly/story1.20-06-00.htm
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/ms/pdf/chry_e.pdf

I think we lost the case.
http://w01.international.gc.ca/minpub/Publication.aspx?isRedirect=True&FileSpec=/Min_Pub_Docs/103738.htm

[applegrove]

15. Wow. Did not know all that. I don't think it is Canadian corporations

on the whole who try and play for time on the environment. Only the ones who model themselves on the extreme American corporate model. The one where your competators to beat are not the other people who make & sell your product..but government, the public, your workers, regulators, customers, politcal parties you don't like... basically the new MBA model is to go against anything that gets in your way and fight with everything you got in order to make more money. (The Economist did a piece, a year ago, on the change in MBA teaching about 15 years ago).

Would that there were some standards across the world on things such as health and regulations. That way the corporations would not race each other to the bottom of the barrel in terms of what they fight for.

[Lisa]

21. that's interesting about the MBA shift ...

A friend of mine (actually an outspoken socialist who ran for city council last year) just started his MBA. I'll ask him whether he's observed these attitudes -- if so, I can imagine some pretty heated discussions in class, since he's not shy about challenging those kinds of viewpoints! My cousin, who went for his combined LLD/MBA at Western, and a high school classmate who attended U of T med school, both became radicalized by their experiences and are now quite critical of some (if not all) of the people they met during their professional programmes. I was fortunate enough to go to planning school at a time when a lot of the faculty and students were inspired by 1960s-type community activism, though several people frankly admitted that they were in it to make money.

[applegrove]

26. I'm not against make money or trying new things. Indeed venture

capital (when there were not venture capitalists) is what gave Ottawa Silicon Valley North. Venture capital is funding all sorts of alternative energy these days.

It is just that some corporations don't see anything good coming out of any benefit to anyone but themselves. I think they are rare and mostly American. Lots of corporation in Canada are happy with the health care system..makes them more productive. It is always a few who mar the whole lot. Don't know how Canada's schools stack up.

[barb162]

4. It will be worse than this scenario.

All the people who live on coasts or low-lying aread will have to move, and often, there is no place for them to move. Millions will die

[William Seger]

9. I think you're right

"Costly" would be an understatement even if we started doing something about it now. If we do nothing, I think it'll be disasterous.

[Heidi]

5. Kick.

:kick:

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. £3.68 trillion: The price of failing to act on climate change

Landmark report reveals apocalyptic cost of global warming

Britons face the prospect of a welter of new green taxes to tackle climate change, as the most authoritative report on global warming warns it will cost the world up to £3.68 trillion unless it is tackled within a decade.

The review by Sir Nicholas Stern, commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and published tomorrow, marks a crucial point in the debate by underlining how failure to act would trigger a catastrophic global recession. Unchecked climate change would turn 200 million people into refugees, the largest migration in modern history, as their homes succumbed to drought or flood.

Stern also warns that a successor to the Kyoto agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions should be signed next year, not by 2010/11 as planned. He forecasts that the world needs to spend 1 per cent of global GDP - equivalent to about £184bn - dealing with climate change now, or face a bill between five and 20 times higher for damage caused by letting it continue. Unchecked climate change could thus cost as much as £566 for every man, woman and child now on the planet - roughly 6.5 billion people.

The 700-page report argues that an international framework on climate change covering the globe will be necessary, and that different countries may opt to reduce emissions differently. Options range from many more green taxes to carbon trading.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1934381,00.html

The leaked letter from the Environment Secretary to the Chancellor mentioned in the article is here (about 720kb of images, so you'd better have broadband). I think it looks quite reasonable, though the Mail inevitably trashes it as having 'a devastating effect on the cost of living'.

[Delphinus]

7. Simply can't

wait to see what we do in response to the world's most serious effort to quantify the long-term effect of doing nothing.

Want to guess what the boy king and current members of congress do - you got it:

NOTHING.

Just one more reason we have to get out the vote and take back our country.

[GeorgeGist]

8. Considering the alternative...

20% seems like a bargain to me. Afterall, the money will still go into someone's pocket; hopefully, not the rich.

[Katzenjammer]

10. Of course, with extinction of higher-order life, there'll be nobody left to pay

So the ruling class can ignore all those pesky doom-and-gloom warnings!

[AlGore-08.com]

13. Global warming will cost world (A) $9 trillion: report (approx US$ 6.9 trillion)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1776304.htm

The world's biggest economic evaluation of climate change says if countries do not act now the world will face a depression worse than that of the 1930s.

The report puts the global cost of global warming and its effects at $A9 trillion - a bill greater than the combined cost of the two world wars and the Great Depression. It represents a fifth of the global economy.

The Stern report, commissioned by the British Government, also says drought and floods could render swathes of the planet uninhabitable, turning 200 million people into refugees to create the largest migration in history.

(snip)

The report from Sir Nicholas says the world needs to spend 1 per cent of global GDP, roughly what is spent worldwide on advertising, and half what the World Bank estimates would be the cost of a full-blown flu pandemic.

If not, the world will face a bill 20 times as big, as well as environmental and social turmoil.

(more... )

[Brundle_Fly]

16. With the Amount of money involved

you'd think the corporations would be all over getting in early to make a buck.

its not the fact that it is too tough to do, its just plain laziness and yesteryear status quo, that lets them continue to bloat themselves off a dying planet.

[maxsolomon]

17. "Growth" SHOULD be derailed

What we call growth puts off true costs on future generations or dumps the consequences on others.

http://adbusters.org/metas/eco/truecosteconomics/true_cost.html

[The2ndWheel]

19. Which is why we won't stop voluntarily

I think it's in the Bill of Rights that every generation must have it better than the last.

All that requires growth, which requires the consumption of resources by more and more people, which requires increased efficiency(complexity), which then allows more people to consume more, and then their children must have it better, which requires growth......

As long as we have the energy needed, we can keep doing it. As long as we have the energy needed, both consumption and population will grow. We'll kill diversity doing it, but anything for progress.

[maxsolomon]

20. Denmark has a different opinion

quality of life is de-linked from growth.

[The2ndWheel]

29. Well there has to be some growth

Even if the state grows with social programs, that's still considered growth.

Denmark is also a smaller country, with a smaller population. Their expanding empire also died a long time ago.

[maxsolomon]

30. they are growing as a Green Power source

and maker of energy efficiency technologies. they are perhaps the only western country that sees the actual future.

[triguy46]

18. Hey, everyone calm down! I have it by the greatest authority...

Sen. James Inhofe, R-OK, that there is no such thing as global warming! So relaz! If Jimbo says he knows better than the scientific world, who's to question? Click on the link and then select the link to the 'truth' titled below.

http://inhofe.senate.gov/#

HOT & COLD MEDIA SPIN CYCLE: A CHALLENGE TO JOURNALISTS WHO COVER GLOBAL WARMING ”

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. Links to summary of the Stern report, the presentation, and analysis

here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6098362.stm

Reactions from scientists and economists:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6098612.stm

There's a fair degree of agreement between the 3 large UK political parties (and probably more) that this has to be taken seriously, and Labour and the Tories are now making the same noises about taxing emissions that the Lib Dems announced as their policy a couple of months ago. They're also saying that its international action that is needed - and they suggest the EU could would with California and the North Eastern US states (ie those not under the thumb of Bush) to form a carbon trading bloc that is an appreciable part of world carbon production.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. And just in time, a NIMBY decision from the Isle of Wight

Island wind farm plans rejected

Plans for a controversial wind farm in an area of outstanding natural beauty on the Isle of Wight have been refused.

The £14m project, which would have seen six giant turbines installed at Wellow, was rejected by planners on Monday.

Protesters had mounted a long-running campaign claiming the wind farm would have a negative visual impact on the island and damage its tourism economy.

The council said it believed in renewable energy, but the wind farm was "the wrong thing in the wrong place".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6100722.stm

Ironically, the island (total population only about 125,000) has the largest manufacturer of wind turbine blades in the UK, employing 400 people. It seems they're happy to profit from them,but not look at them. Pah.

[leftofthedial]

25. we've allowed corporations to externalize their greatest costs

filling the air with chemicals is not free

filling the water is not free

clearing forests is not free

etc.

but we've given them a virtually free pass for nearly two centuries.

Having vast supplies of "free" resources to exploit is the only thing that makes capitalism work. Now those "free" resources are all running out. This is an even bigger "engine" than peak oil for the corporate totalitarianism we see today.

[Bzzzz]

27. Here is an article I was just sent...

by a R/W thug...
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=265464

[sutz12]

28. We need to kill the "Global Warming" meme

It tends to paint the wrong picture that the polluters can use to their advantage.

We need to start using the "Climate Change" meme. It encompasses the other possibilities, like triggering ice age-like events, as well as covering the concept of more intense storms, etc. God really screwed us this year. Just when we were getting some exposure and publicity, we go and have one of the softest hurricane seasons in decades. :shrug: