When we turn on the television

8/7/2019 When we turn on the television

1/4

When we turn on the television, flip through a newspaper, or search the internet,

we find ourselves being constantly bombarded by an ever increasing amount of

information about the phenomenon of global warming. Climate change has far

reaching effects that encompass all the basic elements of life for individuals

around the world: access to water, food production, health, and the environment.

People are beginning to realize that it is not something that can simply beignored. Evidence of flooding, extinction threats toward many species, and the

possibility of humans actually having to relocate have caught citizens attention

and they are looking for answers. Global Warming has become one of the most

pressing issues of modern society. The economic effects are very significant and

deserve our attention. The Stern Review on Economics of Climate Change argues

that, [d]ecisive and strong international action is urgent: Delay means greater

risk, and higher long term costs.

It is evident that all countries will be affected, although the extent to

which is not a uniform reflection of the damages they are inflicting upon theenvironment. A specific countries part per million concentration output of green

house gases is referred to as flow. It is when these annual emissions of economic

activity combine as a stock concentration that negative temperature increases

and physical damages become the result. Consequently, even though the larger

industrialized economies are creating the bulk of the problem, they will not be

the first to feel the consequences. Instead the burden will be felt greatest by

those countries with limited economic resources, low levels of technology, poor

information and skills, limited infrastructure, unstable or weak institutions, and

inequitable empowerment and access to resources. Such nations have little

adaptive capacity and are highly vulnerable to climate change.

One of the most vulnerable means of productions is that of agriculture

because it is directly dependent on temperature, precipitation levels, and soil

conditions. These variables cannot be controlled and are essentially irreversible.

To add to the problem, the regional distribution is uneven. While production may

slightly rise in higher latitudes because of a possible increase in arable land,

overall, an assumed decline in available water will reduce production levels.

This destructive effect on global food production is the inverse of what a

functional future society will require to be sustainable. As global warming causes

the desertification of agricultural land, compounded with a shortage of water, the

result will lead to problems in supplying food and rising prices. This is of

particular importance for those countries which are net importers of food stocks.

Having to cope with the projected increase in population size and a decrease in

viable food reserves is something that we need to try and avoid. From an

economical perspective we could save a great deal of money and capital if we

preserve the land and resources we have on hand, instead of having to invest in

fabricating new means of food production for future generations.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that if we

go on with Business as Usual, by 2100 global sea levels will probably have

risen by 988cm and average temperatures by between 1.5 and 5.5 C. Well atfirst glance, one might consider these minuscule changes, and a mere


2/4

coincidence associated with the aging of planet Earth, they truly deserve our

uttermost attention. In addition to problems associated with food production one

can anticipate a rising sea level. Loss of land and structural damage will be soon

to follow. It is expensive trying to fight rising sea levels, and even the best flood

defences may be unsuccessful in preventing the inevitable. In recent years,

storms have also been on the rise. Events similar to that of Hurricane Katrina inNew Orleans are becoming all too common and have resulted in huge insurance

payouts. If current trends continue, one can argue that higher insurance

premiums will become the norm, and some areas may even become uninsurable.

We should also consider the affect of changing temperatures on wildlife. Many

species are extremely sensitive to change, and cannot adapt fast enough to cope

with current climate change trends. Although the exact economic cost is hard to

evaluate, as plants and animals go extinct we are losing out on opportunities for

future medications to be discovered and invented. Imagine how a cure for cancer

would reduce the strain on the healthcare system. Lastly we need to consider

migration. Overcrowding could present itself as a major problem, because thosethat are suffering will relocate to countries that are better off. If we want to

maintain our better our current standard of living it is vital that we implement

change today, and not procrastinate till tomorrow, next week, or a month from

now.

Such factors will have a widespread affect so it is important to employ a

method of international burden sharing. A simple example of this could be

cooperation to bring forward new and improved technology; including the

sharing of risks on demonstration projects, and coordinating big research

projects. More specifically, one approach could be to impose national targets onemissions as reflected in the Kyoto Protocol. A secondary, more probable

approach, would call for a set of actions that states would agree to undertake.

These mutually agreed behaviours would aid in the mitigation of emissions.

Perhaps the most reasonable way to allocate emission rights and the

obligation to reduce emissions would be to calculate a "business-as-usual"

trajectory of emissions for each country on the basis of recent history,

development prospects, and past experience with the evolution of greenhouse

gas emissions in relation to economic development. Then each country could be

charged with reducing emissions by a uniform percentage, chosen in

relation to global reduction requirements, relative to the assigned trajectory.

By doing show this would put countries on a more level playing field in regards to

population, GDP, and current pollution levels. Furthermore, it would make it

harder for countries to opt out of signing aboard and to point fingers at one

another. Such a system would make nations responsible for themselves and

would require them to assume accountability for their actions.

The European Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is currently the largest

emissions trading scheme and serves as a role model for an effective cap and

trade mechanism. The CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) plays an important

economical role as it aids in reducing the amount of future climate change. It


3/4

does so by first, improving the cost-effectiveness of GHG (green-house gas)

mitigation policies in developing countries. Secondly, by reducing carbon

leakage of emissions from developed to developing countries. Leakage is

where mitigation actions in one country or economic sector result in another

country's or sector's emissions increasing. (e.g. through relocation of polluting

industries from Annex I, developed countries to non-Annex I, developingcountries) Thirdly, it boosts transfers of clean, less polluting technologies to

developing countries. Such joint implications would benefit from an increasing

size of the carbon markets. By expanding schemes to new countries and sectors,

we could essentially reduce the flow of GHGs.

Countless scientific studies have illustrated the damages generated by

green house gas emissions. They are external, global, large, long term, and

potentially irreversible. This presents a unique challenge for economists because

it could lead to the greatest and widest ranging market failure. The solution lays

in the fact that we know annual global emissions must be below ten. This is theearths natural ability to absorb green house gases, anything above and the

stock will continue to grow. On the same note, we also know that a tone of

carbon does the same amount of damage no matter where it comes from in the

world. These two facts taken together make a carbon tax a likely solution to

current problems. The idea behind this would be a broadly comparable global

price for carbon reflecting the damages imposed on the environment by

individual manufacturing sectors, states, and countries. Instead of having to pay

additional taxes to the government the theory is that businesses would instead

invest money into research and come up with more efficient ways of doing

things. Perfecting current methods by reducing the amounts of harmfulemissions released into the atmosphere. As well as being more environmentally

friendly instead of just focusing on sales margins. Yes, at first it may be hard to

encourage on an international level, but such are the only solutions to a global

problem. We must build shared awareness, a sense of shared trust,

understanding, and cooperation. Respect will become important, and this fueled

by a notion of shared responsibility will lead countries to honor such

commitments.

It is time we accept the inevitable the need to take action against the

problems associated with global warming, and the evils of procrastination. As the

temperature rises, the damages increase un-proportionately to that of

temperature. The longer we wait, the greater the consequence will be and the

harder it will be to get GHGs at a manageable level. By definition, adaptation

requires that you know what you are adapting to, and you cannot do that in

advance. We cannot prepare for what we do not know, so it is best to use our

resources to preserve what we have. This is all the reason for us as citizens,

societies, and nations to implement the largest degree of progressive change

that we possibly can and respect planet Earth. If things like recycling and the

threat of extra taxes do not motivate you to change. Look at the economics of it

and see how vast of a financial burden we can eliminate for future generations, if

we simply implement small gradual changes today on an international level.


4/4

Bibliography

Burniaux, J-M. et al. (2009). The Economics of Climate Change Mitigation: How to

Build the Necessary Global Action in a Cost-Effective Manner. EconomicsDepartment Working Papers No. 701.

http://appli1.oecd.org/olis/2009doc.nsf/linkto/eco-wkp%282009%2942. Retrieved

2010-10-24.

Cooper, Richard. (2000). International Approaches to Global Climate. The World

Bank Research Observer, 15-2. p 145-172. Oxford University Press.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3986413. Retrieved 2010-10-22

Smit, B. et al. (2001). Adaptation to Climate Change in the Context of

Sustainable Development and Equity. In: Climate Change 2001: Impacts,

Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[J.J.McCarthy et al. Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and

New York, N.Y., U.S.A..

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm.

Retrieved 2010-10-20.

The National Archives. (2008) Stern Review Report. Retrieved from

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

+/http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/independent_

reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

2010-10-20

Documents

When we turn on the television