Well, yes, we've known this. Unfortunately, economic "interest" almost always takes a very short-term view due, in part, to the difficulties and broad range of values involved in setting discount rates into the future. The shorter term is more easily controlled in a number of senses. Some environmentalists disagree entirely with this short-sightedness and suggest that longer-term planning has to be based, at a minimum, on the precautionary principle and, more ambitiously, on a more broad-based movement towards sustainability.Failing to fight global warming now will cost trillions of dollars by the end of the century even without counting biodiversity loss or unpredictable events like the Gulf Stream shutting down, a study said on Friday.
But acting now will avoid some of the massive damage and cost relatively little, said the study commissioned by Friends of the Earth from the Global Development and Environment Institute of Tufts University in the United States.
"The climate system has enormous momentum, as does the economic system," said co-author Frank Ackerman. "We have to start turning off greenhouse gas emissions now in order to avoid catastrophe in decades to come."
The study said the cost of inaction by governments and individuals could hit 11 trillion pounds a year by 2100, or six to eight percent of global economic output then.
Furthermore, this kind of analysis of broad economic and social costs translated into quantitative terms demands responsibility where none is likely to be found. In other words, this is not an economic issue at all. The science is there, solidly. The economics is there, meagerly. The politics is not. Tackling climate change is a political issue. And, frankly, the only ones who seem to be aware of this are a smattering of environmental ethicists, activists, policy-makers, and scientists, as well as Al Gore.
2 comments:
I think awareness of the seriousness of the crises we face is spreading rapidly, as evidenced by the number of global warming articled in the mainstream press. It's just a very difficult step for most people to recognize that personal change is required.
I agree. Somehow concern has permeated the consciousness of most people, it appears. But the next step always seems to become either a short-term utilitarian calculation or a neoclassical faith in technological development. These are alsopowerful features of especially the American consciousness.
I'm afraid we'll have to face serious crisis before there's genuine action. The problem with climate change is that that crisis extends from relatively manageable flooding to catastrophic climate patterns. In neither case will we be able to do much about it. And technology sure ain't going to be the answer by that point.
Post a Comment