Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion

Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (10/29/2006 2:31:37 PM)
A report commisioned by the British government says climate change will cost £3.68 trillion ($7 trillion) or 20% of the entire world's wealth. Making decisions now will be expensive but will only cost 1% of the world's wealth. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1934381,00.html It also states that market forces are proving to be a castostrophic failure and are acting like the planet is a company in liquidation.

toservez -> RE: Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (10/29/2006 2:42:04 PM)
Don't get me wrong as I do believe in global warming and the necessity to do something about it and hopefully the sooner the better, but I have always rolled my eyes when the experts try to put a pound/dollar/euro amount to some guess future thing. To me it is just another way to try to shock people into doing something. Personally I have a tough time buying into something as gradual as global warming causing a catastrophic global recession. I think something more sudden could only cause something like that. To me stuff like that is a scare tatic that hurts more than helps the cause.

Dtesmoac -> RE: Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (10/29/2006 3:01:02 PM)
Interesting comparisons used concerning the amonunt of "investment" required now versus later i.e 1% now which is equivalent of what is currently spent on advertising compared with 20+% if the world waits? So if every country imposes a 100% tax on all advertising now and uses the revenue for combating climate change we would have a perfect scenario of hot air being used to stop more hot air !!! Some interesting stats not in the article, - the average Chinese person consumes 10 to 15% of the Energy of an average US citizen & rising quickly - source UNFCC - the UK public whilst concerned about climate change were found to be the worst "wasters of energy in Europe" in a survey recently - generally it is industry that is reducing carbon emmisons in the UK and not "the public" - 5% of worlds forest is lost each decade, with the world bank estimating 20% of global carbon emissions contributed by deforestation. Currently the deforested land is valued at $200-500 per unit (for pasture) but if economics were changed to ensure its true value of $1500 to 10000 per unit as indicated when its role in carbon contribution is included and this figure was suported via carbon emissions taxation then as with many things once money is attached to them, it will become do-able, instead of the "pie in the sky" that some people claim at the moment, for remaining forests to be kept viable. MC - interesting that the value of human life and ecosystems has not been incorporated within the economics for this report.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (10/29/2006 3:04:01 PM)
Thomas Schelling, a Nobel laureate in economics, keeps trying to do just that, and he always minimizes the economic consequences of climate change. So it's refreshing to see a new study with vastly different conclusions. Here's a good example of Schelling: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20020501facomment8138/thomas-c-schelling/what-makes-greenhouse-sense.html quote: ORIGINAL: toservez Don't get me wrong as I do believe in global warming and the necessity to do something about it and hopefully the sooner the better, but I have always rolled my eyes when the experts try to put a pound/dollar/euro amount to some guess future thing.

LTRsubNW -> RE: Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (10/29/2006 3:08:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver A report commisioned by the British government says climate change will cost £3.68 trillion ($7 trillion) or 20% of the entire world's wealth. Making decisions now will be expensive but will only cost 1% of the world's wealth. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1934381,00.html It also states that market forces are proving to be a castostrophic failure and are acting like the planet is a company in liquidation. Yeah, but, by then China will sell cars that cost $129.95 that last for 10 years, so some things will be cheaper.

Dtesmoac -> RE: Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (10/29/2006 3:09:38 PM)
toservez Estimating the cost of future events is difficult but unfortunately some world leaders seem unable to respond to anything other than monetory considerations. Also there is the "if you can't measure it you can't manage it" beloved of business leaders, so an estimate even if widely inacurate may help to drive the change needed. Also one of the topics that often comes up is the issue of illegal imigrants and refugees. At the moment there are already indications of movements of people due to increased water stress: - Brazil - one in five peple born in arid Northeast relocates to avoid drought - China - Gobi desert is spreading in three provinces - forcing population movements - Nigeria - 2000sq km is becoming desert each year. When you also put into the equation some of the other issues e.g. Calafornian water supplies, Australian grape varieties, main waetr supplies for parts of India, Pakistan & China comming from retreating glaciers - the ongoing and future costs are enormous. The science is generally agreed in most reputable global organisations, it is now a case of what WILL spark the bahavioural and economic change.

meatcleaver -> RE: Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (10/29/2006 4:11:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LTRsubNW quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver A report commisioned by the British government says climate change will cost £3.68 trillion ($7 trillion) or 20% of the entire world's wealth. Making decisions now will be expensive but will only cost 1% of the world's wealth. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1934381,00.html It also states that market forces are proving to be a castostrophic failure and are acting like the planet is a company in liquidation. Yeah, but, by then China will sell cars that cost $129.95 that last for 10 years, so some things will be cheaper. The price of purchasing the car is not as important as the cost of using the car, though making a car uses vastes amount of energy so even the manufacturing needs to be cut down if manufacturing can't be made carbon neutral. Governments really need to promote public transport where possible and make frivolous journeys cost prohibitive somehow until our behaviour changes.

meatcleaver -> RE: Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (10/29/2006 4:14:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac MC - interesting that the value of human life and ecosystems has not been incorporated within the economics for this report. I guess we live in a capitalistic society and know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I first heard about the report and stats on the TV news, I then looked on the internet to see if any of the papers were reporting it. The guess the full report will say a lot more than just the headlines.

philosophy -> RE: Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (10/29/2006 4:18:58 PM)
....given that the main plank of anti-green opposition is on economic grounds, it makes sense to at least try to put a dollar value on climate change. However, i doubt it'll make much difference because to really get to grips with this issue a view of the future longer than an electoral cycle is needed.....indeed, a view of the future longer than a single lifetime is necessary. Someone once said on these fora something along the lines of, the one thing you can be sure of is that in 100 years time we all wont care about anything. It is that sort of thinking that defeats efforts to deal with climate change.

Sinergy -> RE: Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (10/29/2006 4:45:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac - the average Chinese person consumes 10 to 15% of the Energy of an average US citizen & rising quickly - source UNFCC This might be used to say that US citizens are more to blame for global warming, but what is not said is that China gets a majority of their energy by burning coal, whereas in the United States we tend to do more hydroelectric, nuclear power, and other "cleaner" methods of gaining power. This is not to say that we in the US are better, since we use an inordinate amount of the world's resources, but at least when we have had more liberal and forward thinking governments we have tried to preserve and conserve for future generations. It is not just how much power a person uses, the more important thing to consider is the footprint one leaves on the planet. Just me, etc. Sinergy

popeye1250 -> RE: Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (10/29/2006 5:11:26 PM)
And of course "only" the "U.N." (for a $price!) can "solve" this "problem." Cum-Bah-Yah, Cum-Bah-Yahhh!

meatcleaver -> RE: Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (10/29/2006 5:15:00 PM)
I think this is one of the problems that has to be overcome and quickly, the argument of who is the worse culprit and who should move first but if everyone waits for the first to make a move, then we might as well kiss our grandchildren goodbye now. It's quite rational for the average Chinese to want the same living standard as the average westerner but if they do, the world won't survive. If everyone on the planet had the same living standard as the average American, the human population would need three planets to survive. The point is that everyone has to make hard choices somewhere along the line and blaming someone else, whoever it is, is pointless.

Dtesmoac -> RE: Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (10/29/2006 5:22:49 PM)
This might be used to say that US citizens are more to blame for global warming, China gets a majority of their energy by burning coal, .............. United States we tend to do more hydroelectric, nuclear power, and other "cleaner" methods of gaining power......... .......when we have had more liberal and forward thinking governments we have tried to preserve and conserve for future generations. .......more important thing to consider is the footprint one leaves on the planet. The key thing about the Chinese issue is that individuals are aspiring to a higher standard of living and so what will occur when they reach even 50% of the US level? And do we in the west have any right to deny this to them? The footprint method of measuring impact on the planet / consumption of resources is really good, and again the US citizens comes out worst closely followed by Europeans, the analogy of "if everyone lived the way we do in the west we need Three Planets worth of resources is a good visual representation. The US, Europe and Japan are predominantly responsible for global warming but are rapidly being caught b y China and India, the key point is that the first three have received most of the benefits from the polution they caused whilst most of the rest of the planet will only pay the price of it. Clear regulation and taxation based upon corporations and the transfer of goods and materials is the best mechanism to drive change in the use of carbon emiting materials. As posted elsewhere 26% of the USAs contribution to greenhouse gases is methane with the bigest contributor being cattle. There are many places where technological and taxation issues can be implemented to enforce the real cost of carbon emmision onto corporations, countries and individuals. This may then help people make hard choices which are required now, not at some point in 50 years time. From the perspective of most people on the planet current US administration has been appalling on this issue whilst the previous one was comparatively progressive, but "we have tried to preserve and conserve for future generations." is I think more to do with marketing than reality.

Dtesmoac -> RE: Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (10/29/2006 5:28:20 PM)
And of course "only" the "U.N." (for a $price!) can "solve" this "problem." Cum-Bah-Yah, Cum-Bah-Yahhh! The UN has very little to do with the actual decisions and implementation of the possible slow down mechanisms. There is no "solution" at this time, but if the ship is sinking it helps if the biggest peole ni the boat bale as well instead of trying to keep on filling the swimming pool. !!!! as people & countires seem to respond to $s faster than the disappearance of plants, habitat, people etc then real application of the pollutor pays principle on a global scale seems prety fair to me. Set reduction limits and any company or country that fails to meet them gets fined / taxed to the hilt with the proceeds going into the most cost / resource efficient projects to reduce emmisions.

Sinergy -> RE: Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (10/29/2006 5:29:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac This might be used to say that US citizens are more to blame for global warming, China gets a majority of their energy by burning coal, .............. United States we tend to do more hydroelectric, nuclear power, and other "cleaner" methods of gaining power......... .......when we have had more liberal and forward thinking governments we have tried to preserve and conserve for future generations. .......more important thing to consider is the footprint one leaves on the planet. The key thing about the Chinese issue is that individuals are aspiring to a higher standard of living and so what will occur when they reach even 50% of the US level? And do we in the west have any right to deny this to them? The footprint method of measuring impact on the planet / consumption of resources is really good, and again the US citizens comes out worst closely followed by Europeans, the analogy of "if everyone lived the way we do in the west we need Three Planets worth of resources is a good visual representation. The US, Europe and Japan are predominantly responsible for global warming but are rapidly being caught b y China and India, the key point is that the first three have received most of the benefits from the polution they caused whilst most of the rest of the planet will only pay the price of it. Clear regulation and taxation based upon corporations and the transfer of goods and materials is the best mechanism to drive change in the use of carbon emiting materials. As posted elsewhere 26% of the USAs contribution to greenhouse gases is methane with the bigest contributor being cattle. There are many places where technological and taxation issues can be implemented to enforce the real cost of carbon emmision onto corporations, countries and individuals. This may then help people make hard choices which are required now, not at some point in 50 years time. From the perspective of most people on the planet current US administration has been appalling on this issue whilst the previous one was comparatively progressive, but "we have tried to preserve and conserve for future generations." is I think more to do with marketing than reality. I dont have any argument with what you wrote, Dtesmoac. The interesting thing about the Chinese government is that they were apalled several years ago to discover that 1/3 of their GNP is spent on dealing with the health care issues their intemperate polluting is causing to their people. What China has going for it is the draconian ability to say to everybody in their country "fuck you, ride a bike and live in an unelectrified hovel." Or, on a more positive note, they can insist that nobody can drive a car which does not have a certain level of sophistication. Which is not to say I think we in the United States need that level of sophistication. I shudder to think what Monkeyboy would do with more power than he already has. But that is probably just me, and there you go. Sinergy

popeye1250 -> RE: Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (10/29/2006 8:17:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac And of course "only" the "U.N." (for a $price!) can "solve" this "problem." Cum-Bah-Yah, Cum-Bah-Yahhh! The UN has very little to do with the actual decisions and implementation of the possible slow down mechanisms. There is no "solution" at this time, but if the ship is sinking it helps if the biggest peole ni the boat bale as well instead of trying to keep on filling the swimming pool. !!!! as people & countires seem to respond to $s faster than the disappearance of plants, habitat, people etc then real application of the pollutor pays principle on a global scale seems prety fair to me. Set reduction limits and any company or country that fails to meet them gets fined / taxed to the hilt with the proceeds going into the most cost / resource efficient projects to reduce emmisions. Dtes, "taxed to the hilt." By who? This all smacks of "Global Socialism." The Western countries live better than the rest of the world because we're smarter. China is just making up for 60 years of communism.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (10/29/2006 8:18:36 PM)
Nothing that those good ole 250-degree temperatures can't undo, popeye. quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 The Western countries live better than the rest of the world because we're smarter.

Dtesmoac -> RE: Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (10/29/2006 9:05:33 PM)
Development of / in China is just generally interesting and whilst in local pockets the development is improving living conditions and wealth etc for the bulk of the still rural population the economic "miricle" is almost meaningless. One of the arguments used for not doing very much in the West is that China and India have to do more before we do - the point is they don't, we have to act, take the moral high ground and then impose suitable incentives and penalties to get them to learn from our mistakes and develope more sustainably. If the real cost of transporting goods from China and India to consumers in the west were included in the price, the capitalist system may start to help the total planet rather than just rape part of it for the benefit of another smaller part of it. Capitalism & western democracy appears to be the best system at the moment for a certain protions of the world, but actually for many others it is delivering very little, that does not mean that other countries should not go down that route, just that the system needs to be truly reflective of the costs of goods and services, and the opinions and values of "alien cultures" need to be adequately included within democratic systems. To some this may sound like global socialism but it's not. If a car costs $10,000 to build why should I expect to buy it for $6000 and some poor group of suckers in coastal margin areas pay the remaining $4000. That is waht currently the high energy and resurce using countries are doing, and justifying it becuase "we are smarter". Blackbeard wasn't smarter he just took from those that were weaker and if they didn't like it he killed them.........!

Dtesmoac -> RE: Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (10/29/2006 9:18:59 PM)
High Popeye - Dtes, "taxed to the hilt." - term of phrase - to set the level playing field you need to put the true cost into the equation, if a country decides to have an unfair advantage by not incorporating the costs of reducing greenhouse gases within their economy then the goods and services from that country should be levied with tax. By who? - the countries that are applying modifications to their economies to incorporate the climate change costs e.g. oranges travelling 3000 miles should have the environmnetal cost of that incorporated compared to the ones that travel 200 miles. This all smacks of "Global Socialism." Not really the market mechanism should be incorporated with suitable regulation to ensure compliance. Make it a comercial advantage to be a responsible company, rather than at the moment where verification of sustainability and environmnetal reports by the big multinationls is something of a joke. The Western countries live better than the rest of the world because we're smarter. This one would make a good thread. There is a very good program called The day the world took off" which explores why the industrial revolution occured when and where it did, by looking at the most advanced civilisations etc of the preceding 100, 1000, 10000 years and why they didn't undergo industrialisation. Look at discoveries and lifestyles and the term smarter is wrong. The other significant factor is that ruthlessness initally followed by "self policing by populations" also contributed significantly. China is just making up for 60 years of communism. What if they are just returning to their normal position as the worlds most advanced civilisation, and are improving on the Western World's system.

popeye1250 -> RE: Climate change will cost £3.68 trillion (10/29/2006 9:50:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac Development of / in China is just generally interesting and whilst in local pockets the development is improving living conditions and wealth etc for the bulk of the still rural population the economic "miricle" is almost meaningless. One of the arguments used for not doing very much in the West is that China and India have to do more before we do - the point is they don't, we have to act, take the moral high ground and then impose suitable incentives and penalties to get them to learn from our mistakes and develope more sustainably. If the real cost of transporting goods from China and India to consumers in the west were included in the price, the capitalist system may start to help the total planet rather than just rape part of it for the benefit of another smaller part of it. Capitalism & western democracy appears to be the best system at the moment for a certain protions of the world, but actually for many others it is delivering very little, that does not mean that other countries should not go down that route, just that the system needs to be truly reflective of the costs of goods and services, and the opinions and values of "alien cultures" need to be adequately included within democratic systems. To some this may sound like global socialism but it's not. If a car costs $10,000 to build why should I expect to buy it for $6000 and some poor group of suckers in coastal margin areas pay the remaining $4000. That is waht currently the high energy and resurce using countries are doing, and justifying it becuase "we are smarter". Blackbeard wasn't smarter he just took from those that were weaker and if they didn't like it he killed them.........! Yup, "Global Socialism." These grandiose schemes always, always involve plenty of U.S. Taxpayer dollars.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875