During the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Tony Blair has told a major breakthrough on long-term climate change goals could be close.
Mr Blair said the US had undergone a "quantum shift" in their attitude towards climate change.
He believes the German G8 presidency offers the chance for a new international agreement when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.
"I believe we are potentially on the verge of a breakthrough," he said.
Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.
"There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we take strong action now".
- Sir Nicholas Stern
The Stern review utilises the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001), along with more recent scientific studies. The review claims that the evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response. Utilising data provided by formal economic models, the Review estimates that if action is not taken, the cost of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP (Gross Domestic Product) each year. If a wider range of risks is taken into account, the estimates could rise to 20% of GDP.However reducing greenhouse gas emissions would limit the impact to around 1% of global GDP each year.
Martin Livermore of the Scientific Alliance claims: The billions which this review says it is necessary to spend are likely to have little positive effect, and could be put to much better use in helping the world's poorest people to create better lives for themselves.
Q. Do you think that the Stern Report is a reasonable assessment of the risks posed by Climate Change?
To view the results go to:
http://dailyreferendum.co.uk/
Mr Blair said the US had undergone a "quantum shift" in their attitude towards climate change.
He believes the German G8 presidency offers the chance for a new international agreement when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.
"I believe we are potentially on the verge of a breakthrough," he said.
Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.
"There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we take strong action now".
- Sir Nicholas Stern
The Stern review utilises the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001), along with more recent scientific studies. The review claims that the evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response. Utilising data provided by formal economic models, the Review estimates that if action is not taken, the cost of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP (Gross Domestic Product) each year. If a wider range of risks is taken into account, the estimates could rise to 20% of GDP.However reducing greenhouse gas emissions would limit the impact to around 1% of global GDP each year.
Martin Livermore of the Scientific Alliance claims: The billions which this review says it is necessary to spend are likely to have little positive effect, and could be put to much better use in helping the world's poorest people to create better lives for themselves.
Q. Do you think that the Stern Report is a reasonable assessment of the risks posed by Climate Change?
To view the results go to:
http://dailyreferendum.co.uk/
3 comments:
The Stern review uses data from the 3rd IPCC report, and is therefore out of date.
The review has been comprehensively discounted by every major economic analyst around the world, for suggesting that 20pct GDP is required, when the UN and other national reports vary between 0.2 and 3pct.
It was commissioned by the Treasury for scaremongering, linked to the Al Gore film in schools, and will be used for no other purpose than to raise green taxes for the Treasury.
You ask the question.
Do you think that the Stern Report is a reasonable assessment of the risks posed by Climate Change?
If this is purely to assess whether we think that the risks are accurately outlined. Yes to Maybe.
If the question is to ask whether I accept the review, the answer is NO.
The Economics of the review are wrong wrong wrong.
So I cannot accept the review as it stands. Perhaps the question could be better written.
Anonymous
Yes I agree the question is a little vague. However I do have to generalise as I need a Yes, No or Do Not Know reply. If I were to make the questions more accurate I would have to have more categories or hold a forum instead. I find that the system works fine as people can vote and also leave comments on the finer points of the topic as you have.
When I asked the question I was hoping it would be understood that the "risks" would be seen as environmental as well as economic.
Thanks for the comment, any input is welcome.
Regards
Steve
Post a Comment