EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
World Can 'Afford' To Solve Its Environmental Woes: OECD
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.
© 2008 Agence France Presse
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
6 Comments so far
Show AllTime to stop supporting the economy that does not support US or our environmental health.
Bicycle, Garden, Solar, small house/shack.
The constraints of global warming may require the acceleration of the deployment of renewable energy sources, and
the early retirement of useful fossil fuel plants. However, if the presently built systems could be used rather than being discarded, the
investment and time needed for the deployment of renewables could be reduced. New high temperature solar receivers make possible
the use in future solar systems of investment made today in gas operated power plants and transmission lines. Progressive
implementation will reduce the risk of initial systems and improve long term economics by avoiding the disposal of the gas fired
power plants when the gas runs out or becomes uneconomically expensive. The initial incremental cost increases of the gas fired
combined cycle plants built today will be minimal from the cost point of view, because it will consist only of preparing for the
possibility of adding a solar air heating receiver and leaving space for additional collectors. In the short term, modules and receivers
will be added, thus increasing the use of solar energy and gaining experience in the solar portion of the system. In the long term,
interconnection with hydroelectric power plants through existing transmission lines will allow short term storage and will reduce the
dependence on natural gas. In the very long term, interconnecting east-west transmission lines will allow feeding the Global Network
from areas facing the sun
http://pointfocus.com/pdf/076-SCOT_CC98.pdf
http://pointfocus.com/pdf/022-d_mills%20mtsa.pdf
http://pointfocus.com/pdf/058-molsaltpowtow.pdf
"We know the enemy. It is called carbon."
Yes, of course. It's been this "carbon" substance all along that has deforested the planet, vacuumed the oceans, wiped out uncountable species, depleted the topsoil, toxified the entire biosphere (dioxins in breast milk? plastic islands in the oceans? lead at the north pole? undrinkable groundwater? yep, we've got 'em!), exterminated other human societies, irradiated the soil and water, dumped millions of tons of solid waste in the land and chemicals in the water, acidified the rain and oceans, and destroyed a literally innumerable list of other things.
It certainly hasn't been industrial civilization, and it certainly hasn't been "Progress," growth, or narcissistic human arrogance. That would just be silly to think, wouldn't it?
Oh the U.S. could, but Bush said that it would be bad for the economy and the press and people just went on to the next topic. Reducing the use of fossil fuels would be GOOD for the economy, not bad. Imagine all the geothermal, wind and solar companies designing, manufacturing, installing and maintaining the new devices. Imagine all the oil money that would not flow out of the country. Imagine all the health effects being reduced by burning less coal and oil. It is a bonanza waiting to be realized by the next President with some vision that is not bought off by the oil companies.
Simple Sauce has a point. Crosshairs on carbon and the capitalist trots off to spew yet another toxin. Crosshairs on capitalism and you limit not only carbon, but all capitalist toxins.
"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 you can convince the billionaire sociopaths who run this world that they can still live more comfortably than everyone else with a 0.03 annual profit loss, then there's a good possibility of saving this planet from total desruction.
If they're too stupid to realize the ramifications of doing nothing about this problem now - the beneficiaries of their stolen fortunes will either be living underground like rodents, or in some glass bubble above ground. Either way, they had better have plenty of "happy" pills available for their confined inheritors whose mobility will be limited by the stupidity of their psychopathic greed.