Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

A report for the UK Government by Sir Nicholas Stern has made the claim that the global economy could be shrank by Global warming by as much as 20%. Considering the main arguements against acting on global warming from the US and Japan have been the threat to their economic growth, that and the claims that the cost of changes to counteract it would only be 1% of global GDP by 2050, meaning it's only 1% poorer than it could have been: which is far better than the potential effects of global warming on both the economy and the environment, shoot down their concerns over what's in it for them.

BBC story
BBC Summary of the Stern Review
An analysis of the report.

Now, I hardly expect the Republicans to suddenly take the word of a British Civil Servant who was once vice-president of the world bank as evidence they're in the wrong on their general ignorance of even the possiblity global warming is a significant threat and nor do I expect certain people to be supportive of such figures (and to be honest I expect some people in the US to dismiss them because they come from the BBC) but with such an economic threat, it's pretty clear why the UK Conservative party has turned green in the last year under David Cameron (AKA Diet Blair) and I'm pondering if perhaps the economic threat might start questions being raised in the US as to what the advantages of considering it a threat even if the science is dismissed by some.

I'm personally wondering why it took so long for an economic angle on climate change to be made an issue. After all, you convince people by telling them how they are affected: Greenpeace and Co. have bleated on about eco-systems and climate change, something that a banker in New York will be unlikely to care about.

So, what do you think? Is regarding global warming as an economic threat first the way forward in getting something done? Or is it all a load of rubbish?

This post has been edited by Del S on 30th October 2006 13:14

--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

I think that if you can show people how the climate's deterioration directly affects their wallet, more people will get involved to help. People are better at handling hardships when they aren't their hardships, y'know? Show them how it could cut into their pie though, and see how many jump on board to help.

Quote

Now, I hardly expect the Republicans to suddenly take the word of a British Civil Servant who was once vice-president of the world bank as evidence they're in the wrong on their general ignorance of even the possiblity global warming is a significant threat

One just did.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

I've been aware of some of the reasons global warming could harm the economy, this report brought more possibilities to my attention,
I can only hope those dumb enough to run for political office will actually read it.
that's one of the main problems with American politics, in recent years only idiots have ran for office

Quote

Now, I hardly expect the Republicans to suddenly take the word of a British Civil Servant who was once vice-president of the world bank as evidence they're in the wrong on their general ignorance of even the possiblity global warming is a significant threat

I'm a republican, and I do take the word of a British civil servant.
But I do believe you are referring to Republicans in congress, and the Bush regime. They will probably choose to ignore this topic, hell Bush is already fighting holistic health care and pushing for pills.

--------------------

"Have you ever seen a baby do that before?"

I saw this on the news, hot topic. I'm not suggesting that ALL Americans are against green taxes but the man they were interviewing (an executive of a collective of American companies kinda thing) seemed really reluctant to accept that these changes are necessary. Also, as we're all aware, Bush states that he'll do nothing that will harm the American economy. They argue that the 1% general wealth decrease isn't accurate. So it's entirely feasable to suggest that America will not agree to the taxes. And since they make a large chunk of pollution, other efforts will be ineffective.

Also China and India are developing countries so therefore they're excluded from the Kyoto protocol. This also renders other nations' efforts pointless. Will they really agree to green taxes? Hopefully.

The reality is that the area worst affected in 2050 is Africa. Apparently, if things continue, they will be entirely dependant on food aid and there'll be a long-term drought as seen from the increase in temprature since the 1980s. Lovely.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

This proposed 1% cost to global GDP... which nations is this sum being drawn from?
More than likely, it's the first-world nations, all of whom are governed by those with
the most invested and most to lose. I do agree that economic pressure will cause
policy shifts, but I expect business as usual: no change until a titanic-level disaster
occurs.

--------------------

Putting the A's in W lm rt: A11smart, Jobclass: Retailer.

Well, i think that the economic side of it is silly, the plain fact is that global warming could ruin the whole planet. I suppose the rich people wont' care as they all can afford yachts or floating houses.

I'm happy david cameron is thinking more of the enviromnet but I think that the only people who have it right are the green party.

It's the difference between an abstract disaster (catastrophic environmental change) and
a concrete threat (increased costs throughout the world and an impact on trade). People
notoriously won't respond to something until it becomes unavoidable, explosive, and fully
engaging; for instance, the institution of accounting standards in the wake of the Enron,
et al, scandals. Everyone knew such changes needed to be made, but it took a shakedown
of the industry to get any attention on the subject. And then, too much attention.

--------------------

Putting the A's in W lm rt: A11smart, Jobclass: Retailer.

Quote (A11smart @ 6th November 2006 22:12)

It's the difference between an abstract disaster (catastrophic environmental change) and
a concrete threat (increased costs throughout the world and an impact on trade). People
notoriously won't respond to something until it becomes unavoidable, explosive, and fully
engaging; for instance, the institution of accounting standards in the wake of the Enron,
et al, scandals. Everyone knew such changes needed to be made, but it took a shakedown
of the industry to get any attention on the subject. And then, too much attention.

OK, well, listen, I totally agree with you but I also can't fathom how given your logic anybody could not have the environment at the top of their agenda right now. Have people not noticed the string of natural disasters the past few years?

In 05 there were a record number of hurricanes (to the point that they ran out of names for them), the strongest recorded storm ever in the Atlantic (Wilma), and Katrina. I've heard all the arguments against global warming and I'm not the most scientifically adept person, but I like to think I'm pretty observant and rational and cause and effect seems obvious to me here. The amount of polluting we do combined with the increase in extreme weather patterns leads me to believe that environmental protection should be one of the world's major priorities right now, and I think the U.S. is one of the slowest actors on the issue.

Now, since I try to be fair: http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,2...94-7583,00.html. (Originally appeared in the WSJ, but WSJ only links to non-subscribers for a limited number of days).

But even that article concedes, "the review correctly points out that climate change is a real problem, and that it is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions." The same concession was made by 6 EPA heads, including Bush's current. Even if people are saying Stern has a faulty solution, I don't understand how people can still be saying we shouldn't act at all.

Quote

Well, i think that the economic side of it is silly, the plain fact is that global warming could ruin the whole planet. I suppose the rich people wont' care as they all can afford yachts or floating houses.

Global Warming has yet to be proven, that's the truth

you can believe it you can not believe it.

But in all honesty it seem the summers are getting hotter and the winters are getting colder.
So just "the green house effect" and "global warming" don't cut it for me.

I do agree if it turns out to be true that the economies of the world could end up hurting, but there is also the possibility that they can adapt.

And also the changes our emissions has made to the atmosphere does need to be dealt with, but first we need a strategy that we know will work, not a solution that will bring about problems within itself, and for all we know the earth could balance out itself.

sadly in this situation, nothing is for sure. And as a result we really can't take any substantial action.

--------------------

"Have you ever seen a baby do that before?"

Quote (sweetdude @ 31st October 2006 12:18)

I saw this on the news, hot topic. I'm not suggesting that ALL Americans are against green taxes but the man they were interviewing (an executive of a collective of American companies kinda thing) seemed really reluctant to accept that these changes are necessary. Also, as we're all aware, Bush states that he'll do nothing that will harm the American economy. They argue that the 1% general wealth decrease isn't accurate. So it's entirely feasable to suggest that America will not agree to the taxes. And since they make a large chunk of pollution, other efforts will be ineffective.

Bush is an absolute idiot. His fiscal policies run counter to Ben Bernanke's and certainly something like "I will not do anything to hurt the economy" is an overly simplistic sentiment. It's a pie in the sky dream and is nothing more than a cutesy little talking point.

The real reasons are probably quite different, but I'd presume that he would pander to lobbyists long before he turns towards feel-good intangible goals.

--------------------

Visions of Peace - Four Generals, One Empire, and the Returners caught in the middle.

Energy Efficient Buildings in NYC

Note in particular the first paragraph of page 2. "Of course, it isn't just environmental consciousness that is motivating developers. Because green buildings use from 30 to 70 percent less energy, they can be run for less money — but leased for more, because companies want healthy offices, which several studies have shown lead to increased productivity."

Quote (MetroidMorphBall @ 7th November 2006 21:24)

OK, well, listen, I totally agree with you but I also can't fathom how given your logic anybody could not have the environment at the top of their agenda right now.  Have people not noticed the string of natural disasters the past few years?

In 05 there were a record number of hurricanes (to the point that they ran out of names for them)

And there were barely any this year.

Quote (MetroidMorphBall @ 7th November 2006 21:24)

environmental protection should be one of the world's major priorities right now, and I think the U.S. is one of the slowest actors on the issue.

The world's largest consumer, and we're not even close to being the largest polluter. I think we may not even be in the top five.

--------------------

"I had to write four novels before they let me write comic books."
-Brad Meltzer

Quote (Dark Paladin @ 17th November 2006 15:40)

Quote (MetroidMorphBall @ 7th November 2006 21:24)

environmental protection should be one of the world's major priorities right now, and I think the U.S. is one of the slowest actors on the issue.

The world's largest consumer, and we're not even close to being the largest polluter. I think we may not even be in the top five.

Incorrect in terms of Global Warming, and I can't find anything to confirm nor deny it in terms of other pollution. The US is the world's largest cause of CO2 emissions, acounting for almost a quarter of global emission, and all greenhouse gases in general. The US is one of the top five in general air pollution, but it's more than likely China is producing the most general air pollutants.

Plus, the world's largest consumption by default means the world's largest waste, meaning the US is probaly going to wind up usually in the top five if not the top producer of most pollutants.

This post has been edited by Del S on 17th November 2006 16:06

--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

No, ameirca produces the most pollution in the world, china is 2nd.

Quote (MetroidMorphBall @ 12th November 2006 04:11)

Because green buildings use from 30 to 70 percent less energy, they can be run for less money — but leased for more, because companies want healthy offices, which several studies have shown lead to increased productivity."

MetroidMorphBall's shown everyone the path impactful environmentalism will take.
It's not in international treaties that fail to get everyone involved, or lopsided trade
agreements favouring nations that both comply for a green earth or are provided
by as 'developing' (and thus no restrictions), it's not in any hippie-yuppie movement
despite how many tiny millions show up to each individual grassroots rally. It's pure
economic incentive. When business agrees that green is more profitable, from either
the intangibles side (good press, positive ecological reputation) or revenue-generating
side (tax incentives, MMB's example of scarcity, reduced expenses), then a reaction
will occur. Until then, just fluff.

--------------------

Putting the A's in W lm rt: A11smart, Jobclass: Retailer.

Isn't it pretty much accepted that humans are not the cause of global warming, if there indeed is any? Or have I been readint too much right-wing propoganda?

Quote (Fire-3 @ 20th November 2006 12:48)

Isn't it pretty much accepted that humans are not the cause of global warming, if there indeed is any?  Or have I been readint too much right-wing propoganda?

It's gnerally NOT accepted outside large elements of the right wing in the US and a small minority elsewhere. The reason there is a debate is precisely because those concerned about the economic impact that steps to prevent global warming, or in other cases, calling it "only a theory" (These people generally also fail to realise the irony in calling certain other things "just a theory" when they promote another theory that is based on even less evidence and has as many if not more holes than the other theory). There is evidence to mostly support global warming, and some to support that it's natural, but the facts are, there is a greenhouse effect in play.

This post has been edited by Del S on 20th November 2006 13:11

--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

I used to be a doubter myself, Fire-3. Now though? I've felt the winters here get warmer and warmer for years.... and the summers getting seemingly longer and more brutally hot. I believe global warming is taking place. The only question in my mind is at what rate and from what exact causes.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Quote (Fire-3 @ 20th November 2006 12:48)

Isn't it pretty much accepted that humans are not the cause of global warming, if there indeed is any? Or have I been readint too much right-wing propoganda?

Humans are the cuase of global warming and its only rich coproations who say its not and they bribed people to fake stuff to say what they said is true and then they started tricking people into thinking it wasbnt true so they could make more money.

Wow, the thought that humans aren't causing global warming is a completely new concept to me. I've always listened to the charities and believed them. I personally don't think they've got their facts wrong, or exaggerating them too much. Otherwise they wouldn't be campaigning surely? Maybe rightists (and all politicians I suppose) just can't accept that they were wrong.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.