It's an accessible, well-argued, well-substantiated report outlining the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is a serious global threat and demands urgent, global reponses to combat that threat. As Wei puts it,
Warning! - Your risk to natural disasters is on the rise. We are seriously screwed... if you can't swim, at least learn to paddle.
If you live in a low lying area, take heed now and move to higher ground - if it's not a tsunami, the surf will be lapping on your rooftops by some time around 2035-50. Register now to become an 'environmental refugee', we will put you in a detention centre under the sea. It will be just like Finding Nemo!
Our esteemed Prime Minister has, however, warned us not to be mesmerised by the report. Don't worry Mr Howard, I'm not mesmerised - just wondering whether I should stop thinking about having kids so as to spare them the future. At least one of my friends has decided he's never going to have them, for that very reason. I used to think he was being paranoid and a hypochondriac...
The report makes the links between development and disasters clear:
Climate change will affect the basic elements of life for people around the world – access to water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.
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.
So in other words...climate change is associated with increased hazards, threats, risks, and that's going to have consequences for levels of social and economic development. Duh.
Not only is it going to cost us in financial terms, but it's actually CHEAPER to do something now!
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.
As usual, hazard events are going to hit the most vulnerable hardest, so they're going to cop the brunt of the consequences of us in the wealthy west having long showers, watching hours of widescreen tv, having the air con on even when it's only 25 outside, and driving our nice cars down to the shops for milk...
The most vulnerable - the poorest countries and populations - will suffer earliest and most, even though they have contributed least to the causes of climate change
And finally...
The scale of the challenge posed by climate change and adaptation makes it more urgent than ever that donor countries honour their commitments… Meeting the Millennium Development Goals already requires international assistance to support action by developing countries. Climate change - and the need for adaptation - will pose an additional challenge for countries’ growth and poverty reduction ambitions… Scaling up development assistance will therefore be essential.
So, now that you're feeling thoroughly depressed, there is something really easy to do...TOMORROW!!
WALK AGAINST WARMING
1 comment:
Heya Bec, I thought I would join the forum. I have had only a brief look at Stern, but have had some chats with my supervisor about it. I will probably write my dissertation on renewable energy policy/conflict (again), so it is quite topical. I think we have come to the consensus view that there is nothing new in Stern. It is a reproduction of all that has gone before it (a common trend perhaps in the international environmental realm ... I am currently writing an essay on the international stagnation and re-dressing of sustainable development, but I will get back to the point). So we have asked why has Stern generated such an unexpected response. Why has our Government and the UK Government (to even a greater extent) endorsed Stern's views and promised (admitedly to very varying degrees) to do something about it. We have three theses: Stern is an economist. My supervisor suspects that being one of the financial boys gives him greater credibility than you or I or any scientist (or 1000s infact). Kind of sad. Perhaps there has been a political shift. Communities appear to be demanding a response (or are they responding to the media?). But I fear the real answer is that here and in Australia the governments are setting the scene quite nicely to argue for a nuclear future.
Post a Comment