Stopping Climate Change Is Much Cheaper Than You Think

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2012 6:20 AM GMT

    http://motherjones.com/environment/2012/04/climate-action-cheap-david-kennedy

    5008619832_839c7b3885_o.jpg


    You've heard it before: Politicians say they'd love to take action against climate change, but they're reeling from the sticker shock. Today, a new report from the United Kingdom's leading climate change watchdog refutes the oft-cited argument that climate action will herald economic Armageddon.

    The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) report, with the hairy-sounding title "Statutory Advice on Inclusion of International Aviation and Shipping," says that in 2050, the UK's emissions reductions across the whole economy will cost 1 to 2 percent of the total GDP. This updates, in greater detail, the range predicted half a decade ago by the watershed Stern Review.

    Just how much is that? For a rough comparison, 1 percent of the UK's 2011 GDP is a little more than what the country currently spends on public housing and community amenities and is no where near the big-ticket public spending items like health care.

    The United Kingdom has enshrined in law an emissions reduction of 80 percent on 1990 levels by 2050.

    "It's a very compelling economic case to act," says David Kennedy, CEO of the CCC, an independent statutory body charged with advising parliament on all things climate. "You don't need radical behavior and lifestyle change to achieve our climate objectives."

    "It's a very, very small impact on growth. And what you get for that is a whole range of economic benefits."

    continue reading

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2012 6:32 AM GMT
    I thought this thread was going to be about switching to Geico.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2012 6:35 AM GMT
    BTW, stopping climate change - like totally bringing in to a grinding halt - it absolutely impossible.

    We can slow it, reverse it, accelerate it, or otherwise alter it, but we cannot bring it to a grinding halt.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2012 12:45 PM GMT
    paulflexes saidBTW, stopping climate change - like totally bringing in to a grinding halt - it absolutely impossible.

    We can slow it, reverse it, accelerate it, or otherwise alter it, but we cannot bring it to a grinding halt.


    That is technically incorrect. If the output of greenhouse gases ceases to be greater than the absorption in the biosphere.. climate change stops.. it is thus easily done, but nobody wants to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2012 2:59 PM GMT
    It amazes me that the United States can spend $100 million per year per war, and that is considered reasonable. Had we abandoned fossil fuels years ago , the wars never would've happened. Meanwhile spending even small amounts on alternative energy research is considered by conservatives to be a budget buster.
  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Apr 25, 2012 2:03 AM GMT
    Deniers in Denial about Why they Deny

    http://climatecrocks.com/2012/04/25/deniers-in-denial-about-why-they-deny/

    btw, you can get updates on this blog by scrolling down the page and entering your email on the right
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 25, 2012 2:11 AM GMT
    It's important to keep heart as we grow older; but don't let it break for the people and things you love. Learn to choose your battles wisely. We all learn how to accept when we're wrong; don't let your heart lead you off a cliff.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2012 2:04 AM GMT
    GreenHopper said
    paulflexes saidBTW, stopping climate change - like totally bringing in to a grinding halt - it absolutely impossible.

    We can slow it, reverse it, accelerate it, or otherwise alter it, but we cannot bring it to a grinding halt.


    That is technically incorrect. If the output of greenhouse gases ceases to be greater than the absorption in the biosphere.. climate change stops.. it is thus easily done, but nobody wants to.
    The balance of greenhouse gasses used vs emitted would have to be perfect in order to achieve a non-changing climate. So yeah, technically, I am incorrect above. But the probability of that happening is close enough to zero that I'll still stand by my original statement. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2012 2:08 AM GMT
    paulflexes said
    GreenHopper said
    paulflexes saidBTW, stopping climate change - like totally bringing in to a grinding halt - it absolutely impossible.

    We can slow it, reverse it, accelerate it, or otherwise alter it, but we cannot bring it to a grinding halt.


    That is technically incorrect. If the output of greenhouse gases ceases to be greater than the absorption in the biosphere.. climate change stops.. it is thus easily done, but nobody wants to.
    The balance of greenhouse gasses used vs emitted would have to be perfect in order to achieve a non-changing climate. So yeah, technically, I am incorrect above. But the probability of that happening is close enough to zero that I'll still stand by my original statement. icon_biggrin.gif


    . its either we get to the balance on our own, or the planet will become unliveable enough for humans that we all go extinct anyway and thus get to balance also... so the chances of us getting to balance, are not zero, they are 100% icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2012 2:16 AM GMT
    GreenHopper said
    paulflexes said
    GreenHopper said
    paulflexes saidBTW, stopping climate change - like totally bringing in to a grinding halt - it absolutely impossible.

    We can slow it, reverse it, accelerate it, or otherwise alter it, but we cannot bring it to a grinding halt.


    That is technically incorrect. If the output of greenhouse gases ceases to be greater than the absorption in the biosphere.. climate change stops.. it is thus easily done, but nobody wants to.
    The balance of greenhouse gasses used vs emitted would have to be perfect in order to achieve a non-changing climate. So yeah, technically, I am incorrect above. But the probability of that happening is close enough to zero that I'll still stand by my original statement. icon_biggrin.gif


    . its either we get to the balance on our own, or the planet will become unliveable enough for humans that we all go extinct anyway and thus get to balance also... so the chances of us getting to balance, are not zero, they are 100% icon_wink.gif
    Considering nobody really knows everything about climate change, I'll let you have that answer and hope we are around long enough who ends up being right.

    However, I have been called a nobody before, so maybe that means my answer is right by default. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2603

    Apr 26, 2012 2:01 PM GMT
    Whatever the costs, they should be set against the costs(and risks) of not acting on this issue. In a situation of less than complete knowledge we have less to lose by acting on greenhouse gas emissions now. There will be other benefits of changing our economy to non-fossil fuels, etc. like security, long term sustainability.

    We can choose to slowly bring this rise in the gases under control or not, but either way, the planet will find its own balance eventually.