Before the Keynes discussions, and ensuing insults, emails were quite
interesting around the topics of mind and sustainable economies. July 4,
I was listening to Sir Nicholas Stern speaking on David Suzuki's new CBC
series on protection of the biosphere. Some may know Stern was chief
economist at the World Bank 3 years ago, and has now come back to L.S.E.
He feels that it is an analytical intellectual mistake to separate
environment from economic growth; that we must work on the two together.
Below, I have posted his 3 year old recommendation, but since that time
he feels there is greater urgency to reduce our per capita carbon
footprint even more. As he said, Pearl Harbor was urgent, why not this?
That we can't wait for the painful experience of it to tell us we're
doing it wrong, for it will be too late. Blood shouldn't be the
motivator, yet we're unwilling to acknowledge what's happening at
1C--deserts, oceans and forests changing so rapidly. Next century,
there's a 50/50 chance we could be facing 5C greater temperatures, not
seen for 30 million years.
He discussed some solutions; geothermal, tidal, even nuclear for those
who find it viable. Carbon reduction by legislation, taxation. That it's
toxic to put a price on carbon, but it's essential. He feels it's a deep
market failure not to put a price on current oil generated energies, and
that regulations reduce emissions.
One of the websites I visited had comments posted below Stern's own, and
there were the expected conspiracy theorists debunking global warming.
One fellow voiced concern that reduction of red meat consumption would
help reduce methane more quickly by up to 1/5 of total. Don't know about
that figure; I've heard varying ones, but I agree that red meat is an
industry that calls for a huge reduction. Another fellow discussed Ocean
Thermal Energy Conservation (OTEC). That sounded really good to me.
Abundant, renewable and cheap. Would supply a lot of jobs, and it might
help cool down the oceans a bit, too, if we got moving on it now.
Ocean acidification and warming are the top two concerns of
oceanographers today. Sediments (chiefly from fertilizers) and
overfishing come in second, then non-biodegradables, as in plastic
trash. A new book by Alana Mitchell sounds interesting called "Sea
Sick"-- focuses on coral life at risk, and coastal dead zones increase.
Findings about how quickly life is going to disappear without healthy
oceans and forests are making oceanographers puke, literally.
I think that things can be depressing when they are uncertain; when fear
takes over from an inability to act. We have a pretty good idea of
what's to come, and we have knowledge to act by. What we need is
collective will to force government to act responsibly.
So, anyone amongst us experienced at world petitions?
Natalia
>From 2006, found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6098362.stm
*The world has to act now on climate change or face devastating economic
consequences, according to a report compiled by Sir Nicholas Stern for
the UK government. *
*Here are the key points of the review written by the former chief
economist of the World Bank. *
*TEMPERATURE*
# Carbon emissions have already pushed up global temperatures by half a
degree Celsius
# If no action is taken on emissions, there is more than a 75% chance of
global temperatures rising between two and three degrees Celsius over
the next 50 years
# There is a 50% chance that average global temperatures could rise by
five degrees Celsius
*ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT*
# Melting glaciers will increase flood risk
# Crop yields will decline, particularly in Africa
# Rising sea levels could leave 200 million people permanently displaced
# Up to 40% of species could face extinction
# There will be more examples of extreme weather patterns
*ECONOMIC IMPACT*
# Extreme weather could reduce global gross domestic product (GDP) by up
to 1%
# A two to three degrees Celsius rise in temperatures could reduce global
economic output by 3%
# If temperatures rise by five degrees Celsius, up to 10% of global output
could be lost. The poorest countries would lose more than 10% of their
output
# In the worst case scenario global consumption per head would fall 20%
# To stabilise at manageable levels, emissions would need to stabilise in
the next 20 years and fall between 1% and 3% after that. This would cost
1% of GDP
*OPTIONS FOR CHANGE*
# Reduce consumer demand for heavily polluting goods and services
# Make global energy supply more efficient
# Act on non-energy emissions - preventing further deforestation would go
a long way towards alleviating this source of carbon emissions
# Promote cleaner energy and transport technology, with non-fossil fuels
accounting for 60% of energy output by 2050
*GOVERNMENT RESPONSE*
# Create a global market for carbon pricing
# Extend the European Emissions Trading Scheme (EETS) globally, bringing
in countries such as the US, India and China
# Set new target for EETS to reduce carbon emissions by 30% by 2020 and
60% by 2050
# Pass a bill to enshrine carbon reduction targets and create a new
independent body to monitor progress
# Create a new commission to spearhead British company investment in green
technology, with the aim of creating 100,000 new jobs
# Former US vice-president Al Gore will advise the government on the issue
# Work with the World Bank and other financial institutions to create a
$20bn fund to help poor countries adjust to climate change challenges
# Work with Brazil, Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica to promote sustainable
forestry and prevent deforestation
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
