• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Climate change 'brings huge cost' (1 Viewer)

Chris Monk

Well-known member
BBC News web site

Climate change 'brings huge cost'

Air travel taxes are one measure being considered to cut emissions

Climate change could cut global growth by a fifth, costing up to £3.68 trillion in total, unless drastic action is taken, a review is to warn.

But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, economist Sir Nicholas Stern said.

Without action up to 200 million people could become refugees as their homes are hit by drought or flood, he added.

Chancellor Gordon Brown is to promise the UK will lead the international response to tackle climate change.

Mr Brown is to say of the government-commissioned report: "The truth is, we must tackle climate change internationally, or we will not tackle it at all."

The Stern Review, which is published on Monday, will say the key to solving the crisis is getting the big polluting countries, such as the US and China, to cut their emissions.

Sir Nicholas will say the polluters must be made to "pay the price" for the problems they are causing the planet.

'Global recession'

Sir Nicholas's report warns unless the world moves to cut green house gases it is heading for a "catastrophic climate change" which would create the worst global recession ever seen.

The Stern Review forecasts that 1% of global gross domestic product (GDP) must be spent on tackling climate change immediately.

It warns that if no action is taken:

Floods from rising sea levels could displace up to 100 million people

Melting glaciers could cause water shortages for 1 in 6 of the world's population

Wildlife will be harmed; at worst up to 40% of species could become extinct

Flood and droughts may create tens or even hundreds of millions of 'climate refugees'

The study will spark a fierce political debate on green taxation as this is the first major contribution to the global warming debate by an economist, rather than a scientist.

'Environmental price'

Already Environment Secretary David Miliband is considering a range of taxes designed to change people's behaviour to offset global warming.

And Mr Brown has recruited former US vice president Al Gore as an environment advisor.

Nicholas Stern is former chief economist at the World Bank

Meanwhile, the Conservative Party said it was examining the possibility of taxing air travel.

BBC environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said some economists say climate science is so uncertain that we should not spend huge amounts now to cut emissions.

However the review says failure to act early could end up costing between 5% and 20% of global GDP and render large parts of the planet uninhabitable with poor nations hit first and hardest.

Africa is likely to be most harmed by climate change and Sir Nicholas says we have a "moral duty" to cut emissions.

Switching to cleaner energy sources, like wind and solar, can help use avoid the worst of the damage, it adds.

Green taxes and changing behaviour will help reduce the effect of climate change - but any schemes should encompass the globe, it continues.

Unilateral moves would not be enough, says Sir Nicholas. For example, if the UK shut down all of its power stations tomorrow, the reduction in global emissions would be wiped out in just over a year by increased emissions from China.

'Urgent deal needed'

The review calls on the international community to sign a new pact on greenhouse emissions by next year rather than in 2010/11, when they had planned to agree a successor to the Kyoto agreement on cutting carbon dioxide and other gas emissions.

Poor communities, who have contributed least to climate change, are suffering the most from its effects

Tearfund Advocacy

Review issues stern warning

Even if immediate action is taken to cut pollution, slow acting greenhouse gases will continue to have an effect on the environment for another 30 years, it adds.

Action groups and development agencies have welcomed the review and urged the government to take action to protect poor countries from the effects of climate change.

"Poor communities, who have contributed least to climate change, are suffering the most from its effects. Current efforts to respond to climate change are simply not urgent enough," said Tearfund Advocacy Director, Andy Atkins.
 
Hi Chris,

I still don't think anyone will really bother to change anything despite this report. The new developing countries like China and India are too worried about industrial development to do more than pay lip service. I hope I'm wrong but.... :-C

Jon
 
edge1255 said:
Hi Chris,

I still don't think anyone will really bother to change anything despite this report. The new developing countries like China and India are too worried about industrial development to do more than pay lip service. I hope I'm wrong but.... :-C

Jon

Hi Jon,

Don't think you're right about this - I mean come on, our Goverment recruiting Al Gore as an environmental advisor - who would've thought it! The public is changing and shaming the Government into these actions, the science is clearer than ever before, and people are dying right now as a result of climate change...

Yes it has to be global, it has to be drastic and it has to be almost immediate. China are building new coal-fired power stations, but they're also developing renewables faster than anyone else. The Indians (and many others) are still way below us in terms of the amount of CO2 they're emitting. If change doesn't happen for the moral reasons, it will happen for the economic reasons. Governments and industries (and individuals for that matter) will realise that their wallets will suffer much less if they take action now than if they let this lie for another few years.

I'm not convinced that green taxes are the way forward (no VB, they're not fair - at the moment at least), but it's a start and it's highlighting the fact that something does have to change. And I reckon something real, not just token gestures, is on the way...
 
I liked the simplified presentation on the news this morning.

1% of the world's GDP to prevent the problem, 20% to deal with the effects.
 
Jane Turner said:
I liked the simplified presentation on the news this morning.

1% of the world's GDP to prevent the problem, 20% to deal with the effects.
That's v.good Jane. Don't always get the UK news - thanks. I'll paint my banner tonight!

David
 
edge1255 said:
Hi Chris,

I still don't think anyone will really bother to change anything despite this report. The new developing countries like China and India are too worried about industrial development to do more than pay lip service. I hope I'm wrong but.... :-C

Jon

I agree with you Jon. No single country can go out on a limb with this, and too many developing countries want to improve their standard of living and financial/industrial "muscle" for any action to happen yet.

As an aside, would you trust this govt (or any other political party for that matter) to use green taxes for green issues only rather than divert it to a general treasury "pot" for use on some of their other hair-brained schemes?

I wouldn't, and unless they can convince me otherwise I will remain sceptical.

Sacrificing 1% of wealth now for 20% at a later date might sound (and might be) sensible and puts it in stark easy to understand terms, but I don't see it happening.
 
The money that they are proposing to raise from tax could easily be recovered if the government sorted out tax evasion, instead of letting companies get away with it in return for favours (anyone see how much Mapeley got away with?).
I also have reservations about just how they are going to spend this money to reduce pollution. Having a pile of cash does not instantly reduce the amount of CO2 in the air. If they were that serious, they'd ban 4x4 vehicles unless you could prove you had an actual need for them. Or they'd do what's happened in the US recently of introducing a fuel converter for pertol cars that means that they can run off off ethanol without major mechanical changes. The UK is growing unneeded sugar from sugar beet that does nothing. It could very easily be turned into ethanol cheaply, as well as being carbon neutral.
I think conservation has very little to do with this tax. They say that the extra road duty on 4x4s would be nearly £5000 a year to persuade them to move to more economical cars, but what happens if people do? There'll be less tax coming in, so they'll find it from somewhere else or make cuts in services elsewhere. It also shows another lie they told earlier this year. If road pricing came in, the road duty would be dropped (as road pricing was meant to carry the cost of repairs and improvements to the road network), but now they are talking of implementing both, so charging you twice to use a car, no matter how efficient. Now they are using climate change as an excuse to push it through, but at the same rate that was only supposed to cover the upkeep of roads. So where is the extra money coming from to save the environment?
Sorry, a very long-winded way of saying that environmentalism probably comes second to revenue in this scheme.
 
IMHO: there isn't a politician alive who worries about things that will occur after the next election: being re-elected is as far as government strategic planning stretches.
Any bunch who can start a devastating war that has so far cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives on a totally fallacious premise and who then lie to cover up their mistakes are hardly likely to reveal the true motives behind this (or any other) 'green' initiative. As I said on here two years ago: the true motive is likely to be concerned with identifying a problem and then (for political reasons) being seen to be 'in the vanguard' of attempts to resolve it.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top