ESRI urges action on climate change

[dmc444]

A dramatic policy change is required if Ireland is to have any chance of achieving daunting EU targets to reduce greenhouse gases, according to the economic think-tank, the Economic and Social Research Institute.

The EU has a plan to reduce emissions by 20% or 30% by 2020 and, the ESRI, the target is particularly daunting for Ireland. It predicts that unless there is a dramatic change in current trends and policies, Ireland could fail to reduce its emissions by a single percentage point.

The ESRI warns that if Ireland is not put on a low-carbon trajectory of economic recovery, the hard-pressed taxpayer will end up paying an awful lot more.

RTÉ Business: ESRI urges 'dramatic' change on climate

[fiannafailure]

Interesting that none of our economic experts have commented on this

[Jethro]

The problem with Susan Scott's climate change report is that it is a policy document for the EU's 2012 - 2020 climate plan. This is an extremely stringent plan and may not be the best way forward.

At an EU conference in Valencia in 2007 (which for the life of me I cannot locate the powerpoint link) the key impacts on human welfare from global warming were set out. These were an increase in the population at risk of Malaria of 300 million, of hunger - 200 million, coastal flooding - 100 million and water stress a staggering 3 billion. All to occur with 3C of warming or in roughly 2100

The figure for water stress is from the Stern Review. The IPCC's 2007 report actually reports that there will be fewer people at risk than today because of an expected increase in the hydrological cycle. A point, it should be added, that is made implicilty.

Indur Goklany, a research analyst with the US's Cato Institute makes the following cogent argument. Using official UN figures, the total population at risk (TPAR) from Malaria in 2085 is projected to be 8.3 billion. Global warming would therefor contribute to just 3.5% of the total. The Kyoto protocal will cost $165bn per year and if held constant would only reduce temps by 7% in 2085. So for $165bn/year we could reduce the TPAR of Malaria by 0.2%. The EU 2020 plan is estimated to cost €60bn/year for the EU alone and will make no discernable increase in temperature reduction over Kyoto. (Lomborg 2008)

According to the UN Millenium Development project, for just $3bn/year we could reduce the total burden of Malaria in the world by 75% through focused adaptation measures and direct development aid. For example, providing bed nets, improved healthcare and education provisions and improving nutrition. All of these would lead to the elimination of Malaria because the disease is basically one of poverty. This is also a no regret policy.

This argument applies just as effectively to the other three global impacts mentioned above. More details below.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-609.pdf


If the EU truly wants to leave future generations with more welfare and a greater stock of resources to have at their disposal then this is better served by focused adaptation rather than mitigation. To put this into another perspective, if the EU plan is based on the Stern review then the cost of the plan to 2050 would be $38trillion. The total estimated cost of global warming this century is $23 trillion. (Nordhaus 2008 and below)

Has Nordhaus Demonstrated We Better Do Nothing About CO2 emissions? The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE

[fiannafailure]

The problem with Susan Scott's climate change report is that it is a policy document for the EU's 2012 - 2020 climate plan. This is an extremely stringent plan and may not be the best way forward.

At an EU conference in Valencia in 2007 (which for the life of me I cannot locate the powerpoint link) the key impacts on human welfare from global warming were set out. These were an increase in the population at risk of Malaria of 300 million, of hunger - 200 million, coastal flooding - 100 million and water stress a staggering 3 billion. All to occur with 3C of warming or in roughly 2100

The figure for water stress is from the Stern Review. The IPCC's 2007 report actually reports that there will be fewer people at risk than today because of an expected increase in the hydrological cycle. A point, it should be added, that is made implicilty.

Indur Goklany, a research analyst with the US's Cato Institute makes the following cogent argument. Using official UN figures, the total population at risk (TPAR) from Malaria in 2085 is projected to be 8.3 billion. Global warming would therefor contribute to just 3.5% of the total. The Kyoto protocal will cost $165bn per year and if held constant would only reduce temps by 7% in 2085. So for $165bn/year we could reduce the TPAR of Malaria by 0.2%. The EU 2020 plan is estimated to cost €60bn/year for the EU alone and will make no discernable increase in temperature reduction over Kyoto. (Lomborg 2008)

According to the UN Millenium Development project, for just $3bn/year we could reduce the total burden of Malaria in the world by 75% through focused adaptation measures and direct development aid. For example, providing bed nets, improved healthcare and education provisions and improving nutrition. All of these would lead to the elimination of Malaria because the disease is basically one of poverty. This is also a no regret policy.

This argument applies just as effectively to the other three global impacts mentioned above. More details below.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-609.pdf


If the EU truly wants to leave future generations with more welfare and a greater stock of resources to have at their disposal then this is better served by focused adaptation rather than mitigation. To put this into another perspective, if the EU plan is based on the Stern review then the cost of the plan to 2050 would be $38trillion. The total estimated cost of global warming this century is $23 trillion. (Nordhaus 2008 and below)

Has Nordhaus Demonstrated We Better Do Nothing About CO2 emissions? The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE

Jethro, the missing trillions are the middlemans margin

[Destiny's Soldier]

The best action we could do is to NOT agree to any reductions in emmissions.

Signing Kyoto II will be economic suicide. Paying Carbon Taxes is the greatest theft in history.

[fiannafailure]

Destiny's Soldier

The real story behind this press release is that the Green Party are preparing the public for the financial hit that the phase 3 EU carbon certificates will present us with.
The original phase 1 certs were priced at €50 per ton, however so many were issued that the real price fell to about 10c per ton, phase 2 addressed this to some extent, however the phase 3 certs will be strictly limited in issue and as Ireland is almost entirely dependant on carbon producing power stations, moneypoint alone is responsible for tens of thousands of tons, the result will be Ireland's promotion to the most expensive electricity in Europe by far and a new range of carbon taxes.

Get your cheque book ready

[Jethro]

Jethro, the missing trillions are the middlemans margin

Sorry Fiannafailure, can you elaborate.

Regards,

Jethro.

[fiannafailure]

Jethro
All of these emission trading arrangements are about real money, and just like the conventional trading exchanges, there is a buyer, a seller, and some middlemen, who all take a share of the cash

[Geoffrey]

We need to reduce the national carbon footprint by at least 50% in the next 5-10 years if we are to avert catastrophic Climate Change and the sea engulfing all our major cities. We truly are on the brink of climate disaster. A little bit of hardship is better than most of the major cities in the British Isles under 100 feet of water.
Mother earth won't survive another 25 years if unsustainable behaviour continues much longer. People will have to pay for the CO2 that they produce. End of story.

[fiannafailure]

We need to reduce the national carbon footprint by at least 50% in the next 5-10 years if we are to avert catastrophic Climate Change and the sea engulfing all our major cities. We truly are on the brink of climate disaster. A little bit of hardship is better than most of the major cities in the British Isles under 6 feet of water.
Mother earth won't survive another 25 years if unsustainable behaviour continues much longer. People will have to pay for the CO2 that they produce. End of story.

my house is 8 metres above sea level and I can swim, and I like fish, and I want to be an algae farmer when I retire, if you are right I wont have to move house to do it