Blogs and Stories
Now Is the Best Chance for a Climate Deal
Tony Blair and economist Sir Nicholas Stern say the next few weeks are a window of opportunity for creating the proper public-private cooperation needed to forge a global deal on climate change.
The economic case for action on climate change is becoming ever more powerful. Essentially, recent research shows that if nations act together to reduce carbon emissions, costs of action fall and new opportunities for jobs and growth rise. There will be upfront investment but this should not be all about government money. There is also a vast potential for private sector investment if we set the right framework of incentives.
The real benefits—with as many as 10 million new jobs created and additional output equal to the green stimulus packages created this year—come when all countries act together.
This week marks the countdown in earnest to the UN Climate Summit in December. Already in the last few days the Major Economies Forum has met in Washington and Environment and Climate Change Ministers have come together in New York. Heads of government have picked up the baton at the U.N. and later this week at the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh. Although climate change is ostensibly an environmental issue, what makes it seemingly so intractable is that the questions that divide countries—and which should bring them together—are economic and go to the heart of government policy. Nobody doubts the need to take action. Indeed heads of government have recognized this for several years. However, the questions of short-term versus long term costs and benefits, what additional investments are necessary, who should make them and the volume and respective roles of public and private financing still divide nations. It is crucial that these issues are resolved urgently by world leaders if we are to reach agreement on a global deal on climate change in the coming months.
• Big Fat Story: The Climate WarsThe Stern Review made it abundantly clear that there is no choice between action and inaction: the costs of doing nothing—economic as well as social and political—would make the current economic slowdown pale into insignificance. And, if anything, the scientific evidence that has emerged since the Review was published in 2006 suggest that the argument for early action to cut emissions is even stronger. Moreover, strong action on climate change will lay the foundations for a more sustainable, and energy secure future. The transition to this form of growth will probably be the most dynamic and innovative in our economic history.
However, the fact that it makes long-term economic sense to act now does not deal with the issues that most concern governments: short-term economic impacts and how they affect jobs and growth and how the emissions reductions are to be financed, especially in the context of shrinking public budgets. New research published by the Breaking the Climate Deadlock Initiative deals with the first set of issues.
Looking at a range of scenarios for participation in efforts to cut emissions by 2020 shows that in all cases there is a small but positive boost to both GDP growth and job creation, even when a few countries go it alone. However, the real benefits—with as many as 10 million new jobs created and additional output equal to the green stimulus packages created this year—come when all countries act together. And these benefits don't just accrue to one or two countries; in fact every country sees new jobs and increased output. Even ignoring the very real impacts of climate change itself, collaborative investment in cutting emissions is good for the economy.
Looking beyond 2020, global co-operation on climate change could yield still stronger economic gains, driving new waves of technological innovation and discovery and new sources of growth and employment. This leads us to the second issue. While the returns on climate change mitigation are positive, the initial investment still needs to be made. Estimates of this additional investment—in energy efficiency, clean energy, reduced deforestation and adaptation measures now and developing the technologies we will need in the future—vary widely.











It's just going to be blue skies and puppy dog tails in this new green world.
So what if you don't believe in climate change... the rest of the world is behind this, and are committed to developing new cleaner more efficient technologies and if we want to keep playing King of the Hill, then we are going to have to get in there with them. So just suck it up and get on board unless you want all American industries to fall the way American auto industries did. You can't just keep screaming "we're number one" just because you have a few trophies.
civilies, google dr. nils-axel mörner and read the pdf "Claim That Sea Level is Rising is a Total Fraud" http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerint erview.pdf
Dr. Morner knows more about sea level than any person on the planet. He's been to 1000s of locations actually doing sea level studies, measuring things. You know, like a real scientist, not like some clown at the UN.
Quote: "A famous tree in the Maldives shows no evidence of having been swept away by rising sea levels, as would be predicted by the global warming swindlers. A group of Australian global-warming advocates came along and pulled the tree down, destroying the evidence that their "theory" was false."
Read the part about the tide gauges very carefully. They prove that the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] are liars and have an agenda. "Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that" says Morner with respect their obvious ass backward conclusions. In other words, they're lying.
Why? Well simple logic would dictate the reason is what it always is: corruption and money grab and power grab.
Quote:
"Dr. Mörner was president of the International Union for Quaternary Research's
(INQUA) Commission on Sea-Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003). Its research proved that the catastrophic predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), based on computer models of the effects of global warming, are "nonsense.""
It may be a cliche, but if man landed on the Moon,
one wonders if technology for better gas mileage exists.
What's the likelihood of suppressed technology between big oil and big auto ?
sophia, I understand your point. I don't know though, that's sort of like back in the 70s (I think) there was a story going around that there was a cure for cancer but it was being suppressed. Supposedly, John Wayne was involved somehow.
I'm inclined to believe that inertia is more at play than conspiracy. For instance, the biggest obstacle for Welfare Reform historically has been the Welfare beurocracy itself. Just like in England with their NHS:
"We have 1.4 million people employed by the National Health Service. It is the third biggest employer in the world after the Red Army in China and the Indian National Railways. Most of those 1.4 million people are administrators, that the managers outnumber the doctors and nurses. And that is the electoral bloc that makes it almost impossible to get rid of."
Sea level is key to the whole fraud. With rising temperatures, some get warmer weather that is beneficial to them, so it's harder for the alarmists to make their case. But with sea level you have the real bogey man, that must be stopped. It's the key to the argument, and Morner knows it's a fraud.
http://www.edf.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf
That is a link to a document put out by INQUA stating that Dr Morner has been misrepresenting his position in that organization. It goes further stating that they represent a large number of researchers and research groups that believe that climate change is happening as a result of human influence. Sea level is just one of many things that happens with climate change and Dr Morner has been refuted by colleagues. Two minutes on google I found that, so I imagine that your set on your stance and nothing will change your mind. In which case your comments on the subject equate to mental masterbation.
Douche Bag
Nice quick bit of research there. Well done. The problem with
reardongalt aka Douchebag is that people of his ilk are now prowling every discussion forum relating to climate change. Often they're the first to jump in any time an article is published (just look at who the 1st 2/3 responders to this article were - Tango121, who's probably got some kind of personality disorder, and reardongalt). Armed with misinformation, it is they are who are pushing this entire discussion back into the stone age. It makes we wonder if these guys aren't just a handful of well funded individuals backed by the likes of Exxon and the CEI or other right wing front groups. Anyway the best way to handle these slimeballs is to refute them right away as you just did.
The most important thing for the US in this legislation would be finding some method to invest in the New Economy and get us away from foreign oil. We cannot simply order and end to all pollution by next Tuesday, rather we need the government in invest in new industries, green technologies, infrastructure, high speed rail, fusion and ion power, and so on.
Other countries are way ahead of us in all this, and we need the newest and most modern things. It is also a good idea to reform the IMF and World Bank so that other countries can go and do likewise.
I am less interested in the idea of giving Wall Street a bunch of pollution credits to play Monopoly with.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.