Close Topic Options

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? - Page 9

The Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change is the most important document about global warming this decade. It was released by Sir Nicholas Stern about two weeks ago in the UK.

For nearly 20 years it has been the science of climate change that has made all the headlines. But what about the actual cost to world economies?

What this report does is remove the one and only excuse the Republicans, John Howard and big business have said about tackling global warming - that it is too costly and will damage the economy.

The Stern report is written by a leading world ECONOMIST. He is not a scientist and uses very tried and proven economic modeling to predict the world's future. These models are used in everyday life by economists the everywhere. It's a business-minded forecast.

Stern is also realistic, unlike many green groups. He is the head of the UK Government Economic Service and the former chief economist at the World Bank. Stern was commissioned by the UK Government, one of Bush's closest allies, to produce this report.

The key finding: If we do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions so that they stabilise at between 450-550 parts per million, it will cost the world between 5-20 percent of global GDP.

The report said that the level would reach 550ppm by 2050 at the current rate of increase, but that the levels were rising so fast that 550ppm "could be reached as early as 2035". As levels increase, temperatures are expected to rise. A 550ppm level gives a 77-99 percent chance of an increase above 2C (3.6F), and doing nothing about emissions gives a 50 percent risk of a 5C rise by the end of the century.

The current level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is about 430 ppm, compared with 280ppm before the Industrial Revolution.

To stabilise emission levels, it will require a cut of at least 25 per cent in global emissions, rising to 60 per cent for the wealthy nations.

The report states: "Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action - reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change - can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year."

A 20 percent GDP loss would equate to a figure of £3.68 trillion (US$7.03 trillion). Five percent is £736bn - while to act quickly would cost the equivalent of £184bn annually - about 1 per cent of world GDP.

Stern accepts that even with a very strong expansion of renewable energy sources, fossil fuels could still account for more than half of global energy supplies by 2050.

The report identified carbon pricing, including carbon-emissions trading worldwide and green taxes, improved low-carbon technology, energy efficiency and halting deforestation as the main methods of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions.

Carbon emissions clearly account for the largest proportion of greenhouse gas emissions. Of the current 430ppm total emission level, carbon emissions account for about 382ppm. Other gases, including the even more toxic methane, account for the remainder, but this is taken in respect to the damage of carbon.

Stern ruled out limiting greenhouse-gas levels close to those of today because of the expense, but said that a level of 450-550ppm, causing temperatures to rise by 2-3C, was achievable. It is also desirable environmentally and economically.

However, Stern cautioned: "There is a high price to delay. Weak action in the next 10-20 years would put stabilisation even at 550ppm beyond reach - and this level is already associated with risks."

Stabilisation up to or below 550ppm would require global emissions to reach their peak in 10-20 years and then fall by 1-3 per cent every year. This would decrease global emissions in 2050 by 25 per cent of today's level. By then the world economy is expected to be three or four times more valuable.

The cost of limiting greenhouse gases to a maximum of 550ppm is estimated at 1 per cent of GDP, which he described as 'significant but manageable". Stern said this is an opportunity for business as the markets for low-carbon, high-efficiency goods and services expand and removing most of the risks associated with climate change.

This report is a massive blow for George Bush and John Howard who have both said that signing up to measures like Kyoto, a carbon reducing measure, will be too costly. Both are now eating humble pie.

The Howard Government has considerably softened their stance on Kyoto and climate change since this report.

This White House is yet to respond to the report. It is totally unacceptable and deplorable that the government of the world's greatest polluter, by far, remains silent. At present, we have a situation where 4 percent of the world's population is creating 25 percent of the problem and their government is the only significant global player that continues to ignore climate change. Well the news is that climate change will cost the US massively, especially coastal communities like New York and Los Angeles.

What Stern also does do is throw the spotlight on developing countries that are likely to become the world's worst polluters. Nobody escapes their responsibility just as nobody will escape the effects of climate change.

I am currently preparing a report on the accounting of the Stern Report and at what cost green taxes can be imposed. This is largely in respect to big business and I will be interviewing leading tax experts, corporate social responsibility experts and other financial chiefs.

I would urge everyone who has any level of interest in finding out about the true cost of Global Warming to read Stern's report. It is a 700-page document, however is broken up into several parts.

It can be found at: Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change

Edited: arvhic on 11th Nov, 2006 - 12:14pm

Man-made Natural Warming Global

One volcano blows more green house gasses and crap into the air than mankind has since time began and the earth cleans and heals itself. Global warming is only the prediction of a model. I've heard environmentalist say, "No, we can't prove it, but if it is true, we had better be ready!" Did you know just a few short years ago environmentalist were trying to feed us global cooling? I didn't buy it then. I don't buy it now. Global warming is just a ploy to make a lot of people an easy living.

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? History & Civil Business Politics

How does Global Warming give a lot of people an easy living?

Page 9 Man-made Natural Warming Global

All the elites who make lots of money by lobbying for all the different government programs that harm the poor and middle class, while moving the money into the hands of those same elites.

They are the ones who profit from the Global Warming scare. It is all about power. And interfering with other peoples' lives.

Man-made Natural Warming Global

I was hoping this report would generate more constructive feedback rather than being dismissed as a ploy to make green groups richer and more powerful. This is a rather tired and boring response by conservatives.

Prove to me what is being said in this report is an attempt to make the elite rich? This report was written by a man who was a friend of big business. He is an expert on development. Stern is an economist, not a scientist. He has no connection or association with any green groups. Here is his biography on Wikipedia:

Sir Nicholas Stern

Furthermore, this report was paid for by the British Government. It was launched by the British Government. I fail to see how anyone can dismiss it as a lobbied attempt to appease green groups.

Do you know how profits by global warming denial? Large oil companies, irresponsible polluters and ignorant governments. Bush knows who profits by it quite well - a lot of crony mates do.

Mousetrails, I would be very interested in finding out more about how much crap volcanos blow into the atmosphere if you could provide me with any links.

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?

arvhic, I must admit you have a way of getting under my skin. I said nothing about making green groups richer. I said many people make their "easy" living "controlling" the US because of environmentalism.

I live in a hotbed of environmental stupidity. A local man, his tractor, and his disc, made national news. He, and his equipment, were arrested because he was plowing his own land where they "thought" there might be an endanger species. A man I talked to personally was told if he was caught driving across his own land they would lock him up and throw away the key, because there was a blunt nosed lizard on his property. They shut down a freeway project for a year because they found a hole that a kit fox might be living in right in the middle of the city. They tried to restrict part of a man-made lake to protect a bird that didn't live there before the lake went in. Save the spotted owl, save the wetlands, etc. etc. I could go on and on and these are only local stories.

I wondered for years what they were trying to prove. Then I heard that they want to take the biggest valley in the world back to its pristine state. You only have to go back 200 years to find this valley was an inland sea. They wouldn't be saving the cute little fox, they would be saving fish. But I didn't accuse the environmentalist of thinking, I said they were trying to make a living "controlling" us ( US )

Thinking conservatives at first found this stupid. Now, after 20 years of it, it makes us angry. Sorry arvhic, your ( sky is falling ) global warming is falling on deaf ears.

Edited: mousetrails on 12th Nov, 2006 - 2:47pm

Global Warming Natural Man-made - Page 9

Go back a little ways and read what konquererz wrote. He did plenty of research, enough for all of us, and came to the same conclusions that I have.

There is conflicting evidence concerning global warming. Nobody can say for sure, whether the climate is warming, cooling, or staying the same.

As mousetrails wrote, one active volcano exceeds, by far, all the output of "greenhouse" gases than all of humanity can for decades - in a single year. Mount Pinatubo far exceeded all of mankind's output for millennia.

Yet so many people want to take action NOW. It doesn't matter what action, as long as it is taken against big business (which always hurts small business much more), and caters to the pet projects of the Left.

You keep saying that this man, Sir Nicholas Stern, is a friend of big business. Perhaps. But the fact remains that global warming is NOT fact. It is scientific theory, that is hotly debated by climatologists and astrophysicists. It is a scientific theory, not based primarily upon observed phenomenon, but upon computer models. Observed phenomenon is used to support the theory. But at the same time, any observations that don't fit the theory is ignored.

Global warming is a religion. It has its prophets and evangelists. It is emotional in content and intent.

As for "who profits from global warming", you are ignoring the facts. IF global warming is happening, then EVERYONE is profiting from it, as anyone who has any sort of pension plan owns stock in the evil oil companies. EVERY world government is profiting from it. Your claims about who profits from global warming points out that those who profit from it generally are contributing to society and to mankind.

But you misunderstood what mousetrails and I were talking about. We were talking about who profits from the religious hysteria of the global warming alarmists. And that is VERY clear. It sure isn't the common people, the ones who receive the advantages of cheap gasoline, cheap power, easy travel, and a high standard of living. It is ONLY the elites. The ones who think that they are anointed to lead everyone else. The ones who KNOW that they are smarter, more capable, and more moral than all the rest of us. These are the ones who do NOT contribute to society. These are the ones who are parasites, telling everyone else how we are wrong, stupid, etc. People like Al Gore.

Again, go back and read what konquererz had to say.

Global Warming Natural Man-made Politics Business Civil & History - Page 9

Here is an article on Wikipedia that discusses emissions from volcanic activity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano#Effects_of_volcanoes

These quotes I found on John Seach's www.volcanolive.com, researching the volcano emissions question. (There isn't any actual volcano emissions information there, by the way. He's a volcanologist tour guide.) Something a little lighthearted that applies to our discussion here.

Edited: FarSeer on 12th Nov, 2006 - 3:43pm