One of the biggest canards that the right likes to toss around is the notion that addressing global warming will be an economic disaster. Cutting greenhouse gases, the argument goes, would cause the national economy to slow down or stop because of the high cost of making changes.
But the argument always has had two flaws. One is the underlying assumption — that the costs of pollution and warming are to be born by society and that the manufacturers (or consumers buying Hummers) bear no responsibility for dirty air and water or higher global temperatures.
The other is the basic assumption that the costs of making changes would not be offset by other savings or by creating new jobs and new industries.
Finally, a new report is out that debunks this argument.
According to the BBC (by way of TruthDig.com), economist Sir Nicholas Stern has calculated that global climate change could cut global growth by a fifth while addressing the problem would cost only 1 percent of global gross domestic product.
Sir Nicholas’s report warns unless the world moves to cut green house gases it is heading for a “catastrophic climate change” which would create the worst global recession ever seen.
The Stern Review forecasts that 1% of global gross domestic product (GDP) must be spent on tackling climate change immediately.
It warns that if no action is taken:
Floods from rising sea levels could displace up to 100 million people Melting glaciers could cause water shortages for 1 in 6 of the world’s population Wildlife will be harmed; at worst up to 40% of species could become extinct Droughts may create tens or even hundreds of millions of ‘climate refugees’ The study is the first major contribution to the global warming debate by an economist, rather than a scientist.
Do you think those who live outside the reality-based community might listen to this?
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
Hank Kalet 