From AFP:
The world could solve many of the major environmental problems it faces at an “affordable” price, the OECD said Wednesday, warning that the cost of doing nothing would be far higher.
In a report presented in Oslo, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development suggested a range of measures to address what it said were the greatest global environmental challenges through 2030: climate change, biodiversity loss, water scarcity and the impact on human health of pollution and toxic chemicals.
“It’s not cheap. It is affordable, but also it is considerably less onerous for mankind and for the economy than the alternative of inaction,” OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria told reporters.
The suggested measures would cost just over 1.0 percent of the predicted global gross domestic product in 2030, meaning world wealth would grow on average 0.03 percentage points less per year over the next 22 years, the organisation said.
If nothing is done however, global greenhouse gas emissions could rise by over 50 percent by 2050, while “one billion more people will be living in areas of severe water stress by 2030 than today, and premature deaths caused by ground-level ozone worldwide would quadruple by 2030,” the OECD report said.
“It has a positive cost-benefit result. Regardless of the ethical, of the moral, of the social, of the political consequences, simply looking at it from the business and the economic point of view, it is a better idea to start right away focusing on the environment,” Gurria insisted.
The OECD said its proposed investment would allow the world to slash “key air pollutants by about a third,” and significantly limit greenhouse gas emissions.
The group placed a special emphasis on the need to rein in carbon dioxide emissions through special taxes and increased emission trading.
“We know the enemy. It is called carbon. We have to fight the enemy and we have to put a high price on the carbon,” Gurria said.
The OECD also suggested measures like increasing waste charges and implementing “more stringent regulations and standards” in the most environmentally harmful industries, like energy, transport, agriculture and fishery.
The organisation also insisted on the importance of international coordination and cooperation.
“If we do not have everybody, and that includes every single developed country but also Brazil, China, India, South Africa, Indonesia etc, it will obviously not work,” Gurria said.
By 2030, Brazil, Russia, India and China’s combined annual emissions “will exceed those of the 30 OECD countries combined,” the group said.
I purposely underlined those two words: ‘We could‘. As we gather more information about global warming, it is becoming more and more evident that the missing ingredient for a successful resolution, has to do with the lack of political will at the international level. The main responsibility lays on the United Sates as the world’s biggest polluter and its leadership role on the international scene. Given that the US leadership draws its authority from its people, the challenge then becomes, how to transform the US from a car addicted – mall obsessed – energy entitled culture to a planet conscious society? Back to yesterday’s discussion on ‘A Most Inconvenient Truth‘, and Kyle‘s point about the cultural dimension of climate change.
Public Education, Political Will, and The Media
Great post, Marguerite. But, had I known that I could have sent a ten-foot-tall photo of myself for my guest blog post on La Marguerite, I would have at least picked my good side. Or do OECD leaders get special treatment?
You are right to highlight “political will.” And, an important part of that, and of the whole equation, involves the media. So, I just wanted to say that, apparently, my (reasonable and repetitious) criticisms of media coverage regarding global warming have prompted a response, in the form of a new post by Andrew on Dot Earth. So, it will be interesting to see the views expressed on that thread from others regarding whether they think the media coverage has been responsible, and as good as it “could” be, or not.
I hope I’m not outvoted and that the Times gets the message. If you agree that media coverage has not been of sufficient quality or quantity, etc., (or effectiveness!), please don’t hesitate to make your views known over there.
I am glad to hear that the OECD has made such an important statement. Bravo.
Jeff, I will make sure to comment on the DotEarth post.
Jeff,
I read all your good posts at DOT EARTH, in fact, I always know I am reading one of your posts as soon as I get into the first sentence or two, really, I say I bet this is a Jeff Huggs post and sure enough, when I get to the end, it’s you! — and they are always very good and right on! Keep posting. Obviously, you have gotten through to Mr Revkin, with his referring prominently to you today —
So… take what I have to say here with a grain of salt and know that I support you 1000000% !
— Danny
This is what I want to say about media coverage of AGW:
I especially like the last line. I have no idea where it came from. But wait, first read this:
Regarding the question “Do the media fail to give climate its due?” — all the above criticisms are valid, as are the CEO’s and managing editors’ rebuttals, from big papers to small papers, from huge TV networks to radio stations — but one thing a lot of us overlook is this:
newspapers are just another form of modern entertainment and information dispersal, they are in the business of trying to make a profit by selling advertising (subscription fees don’t amount to a thing in the total income package) to large stores and corporations, and readers, while important, are NOT part of the business model, other than to keep circulation figures up and therefore get high advertising fees from the advertisers.
Advocacy newspapers belonging to specific advocacy groups, rightwing or leftwing or green or whater, are a different animal altogether. They exist from funding from readers, sponsors and rich benefactors.
The Times, like the Springfield Union, my old hometown paper, or the Boulder Camera (gotta love that name for a newspaper) are not really “news” papers — they are for-profit business. And they exist to inform, entertain, editorialize, advertise escort services, plug a new TV show, make PR people happy and host of other reasons — none of which have much to do with mitigating global warming.
That’s our dilemma. We live in a business model world. What other world is there?
That said, we need better coverage of the climate change crisis. But we won’t get it until the “war” begins, and so far, nobody has shot the archduke on the steps of World War One or bombed “Pearl Harbor” as part of World War Two.
“World War Three” will not be televised.
interesting debate.
Bonjour Tristesse!
LaM,
I am using this space, if your moderators will allow me, to announce
to your readers and whoever else surfs on by, the start of the
international ”Vaclav Klaus Climate Joke Awards” here:
http://climatejokeawards.blogspot.com
They “honor” (sic) people who say stupid things about the climate
crisis. The awards are satire. Then again, maybe they aren’t satire.
The page is up now and running and we are accepting nominations via
the comment section throught the year, anytime you spot a good quote,
send it in. With reference. we are fact-czechers, if nothing else.
Cheers,
http://climatejokeawards.blogspot.com/
one good topara site ufff get inthatf eh very good uf i am on on it get inthere there hahah
escorte oslo