"Address Climate Change or Risk Economic Downturn" [Stern report]
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/10/30/climate-cost.html
"Tackle climate change or face deep recession, world's leaders warned"
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1931542,00.html
"Spend, spend, spend plan to tackle warming"
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1933689,00.html
K - These links tell about the Stern Report, done at the request of Brit PM Tony Blair.
Economically, the report states, the world will lose about $7Trillion per year due to climate change effects. On the flip side, alternative energy industries will provide economic opporunities and possibly restore some of the wealth of the Elites back to the average person as the energy industry monopolies break down.
quotes from links:
"climate change could tip the world economy into a terrible recession and we must start spending serious money to stop it"
"it will be cheaper for developed nations to tackle the problem with significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, than to deal with the consequences. Global warming could deliver an economic blow of between 5% and 20% of GDP to world economies because of natural disasters and the creation of hundreds of millions of climate refugees displaced by sea-level rise. Dealing with the problem, by comparison, will cost just 1% of GDP"
"there are still large numbers of people who argue that we cannot address climate change on a precautionary basis because it will cost too much and affect GDP. The Stern review almost completely destroys the intellectual basis of that argument"
Bush and his friends and supporters in the oil business stand to gain by denying climate change and by getting in the way of investments in alternative energy sources that will result in fossil fuel emissions reductions. The average person, however, stands to lose if we do not change our energy sources away from fossil fuels.
On the other hand, if we had lots of investments in alternative energy, the average person would have a lot of opportuinites. Wrestling the monopoly on energy away from the Elites will go a long way to restoring the average persons' spending power as more money trickles into the normal economy and out of the vast fortunes that are locked up the Elites.
The main thing is still climate change and extreme weather events. The physical dangers of these will hit the poorest people the hardest, and only those will many millions of dollars will be able to cope with the damages.
Most people will lose everything in storms and rising sea levels and other changes - insurance won't cover that - and all because a few Elites [led by Bush] want to continue their huge profit-taking on the high price of oil. It is that simple.
Karlin
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/10/30/climate-cost.html
"Tackle climate change or face deep recession, world's leaders warned"
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1931542,00.html
"Spend, spend, spend plan to tackle warming"
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1933689,00.html
K - These links tell about the Stern Report, done at the request of Brit PM Tony Blair.
Economically, the report states, the world will lose about $7Trillion per year due to climate change effects. On the flip side, alternative energy industries will provide economic opporunities and possibly restore some of the wealth of the Elites back to the average person as the energy industry monopolies break down.
quotes from links:
"climate change could tip the world economy into a terrible recession and we must start spending serious money to stop it"
"it will be cheaper for developed nations to tackle the problem with significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, than to deal with the consequences. Global warming could deliver an economic blow of between 5% and 20% of GDP to world economies because of natural disasters and the creation of hundreds of millions of climate refugees displaced by sea-level rise. Dealing with the problem, by comparison, will cost just 1% of GDP"
"there are still large numbers of people who argue that we cannot address climate change on a precautionary basis because it will cost too much and affect GDP. The Stern review almost completely destroys the intellectual basis of that argument"
Bush and his friends and supporters in the oil business stand to gain by denying climate change and by getting in the way of investments in alternative energy sources that will result in fossil fuel emissions reductions. The average person, however, stands to lose if we do not change our energy sources away from fossil fuels.
On the other hand, if we had lots of investments in alternative energy, the average person would have a lot of opportuinites. Wrestling the monopoly on energy away from the Elites will go a long way to restoring the average persons' spending power as more money trickles into the normal economy and out of the vast fortunes that are locked up the Elites.
The main thing is still climate change and extreme weather events. The physical dangers of these will hit the poorest people the hardest, and only those will many millions of dollars will be able to cope with the damages.
Most people will lose everything in storms and rising sea levels and other changes - insurance won't cover that - and all because a few Elites [led by Bush] want to continue their huge profit-taking on the high price of oil. It is that simple.
Karlin