|
| Christopher Horner Video: "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" |
Posted on 03/05/2008 5:02:23 PM PST by NormsRevenge
OSLO (AFP) - 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.
GW ping
|
| Christopher Horner Video: "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" |
It kind of sounds like the Socialists are starting to figure out that if they torpedo all of the capitalist countries with their BS, “global warming” hoax, who the hell will be around to keep their Socialist @$$es from going under and their populations starving to death.
Are we not carbon based life forms ? so were enemies to our selves why dont these liberal idiots kill themselves if they care so much that way were left in peace and they don't have to worry about adding to the farce of the Seasons !
Norm, Look what some enterprising dude went and done! I saw a bumper sticker about this and checked it out http://www.terrapass.com/ Whatta guy! Making serious cash off a total LIE!
Global Warming Doubters Strike Back
Global Warming on Free Republic
This part might be true. Has nothing to do with carbon pollution.
Easy solution: don’t buy products from Brazil, Russia, India and China if you really care about the environment.
Of course I have other reasons to not buy from Russia and China than environmental ones.
I wonder how a Fight Global Cooling site would be received? sarc/ Such a site could cover the benefits of a warmer earth, lower death rates, greater crop yields, etc. as well as the forecasts for global cooling to set in within the next ten years. The trouble would be that the site would be blocked by legislators or DNS attacks or some combination.
Brazil?
How can that be?
Brazil powers their and trucks with all that "enviro-friendly" ethanol, they CAN'T possibly be polluting....
Russia and China don't give a rat's @ss about pollution, and India is just beginning to build up their industrial base....
If it has a positive cost-benefit, than there should be no need to force people to do it.
commie bastards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.