[GJM] Fwd: Global Warming: More Inconvenient Truths

Thu Nov 16 04:17:16 MST 2006

Dear all, 

  I have ead the Executive Summary of the recently published Stern Report on the Economics of Climate Change. It told me, in some detail: 

  i) what mitigating, and adapting to, the changes in the earth's climate will cost the world's nation states who, as the world's governments bear primary legal responsibility for the changes. 
  ii) that the costs of carrying on as usual will be far more than the costs of meeting the challenge
  iii) how main stream economists do such calculations.
  iv) that their competence , in this regard, is good, and finally,  
  iv) that their ability to do such standard calculations beats the economic models that they come up with, and sometimes get big prizes for, hands down. 

  meher engineer.        

robert searle <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
  Dear Mukhtar,

The message you sent is just expressing the
obvious. Society has becomes too disempowered by
politics, and politicians. More importantly,
especially the rich Western countries apathy,and
complacency are the key problems that prevent real
positive changes. I believe the problem with wealth is
that it can make us too materialistic.Objects in the
main rather than people become more important.

It may be best not to worry at all ofcourse, and let
some catastropic event occur forcing humans to
change.This is something which Jacque Fresco appears
to understand. He may be right in that respect. 

R.Searle

--- Muhammad Mukhtar Alam 
wrote:

> 
> 
> Note: forwarded message attached.
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Sponsored Link
> 
> Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - $150,000 loan
> for $579 a month. Intro-*Terms> From: "John Bunzl"

> To: 
> Subject: Global Warming: More Inconvenient Truths
> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:50:10 -0000
> 
> [Please forward to your networks. If this message
> should be unwelcome, please notify us for removal.]
> 
> 
> 
> Global Warming: More Inconvenient Truths
> 
> 
> 
> By Diana Trimble
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just the planet that's hotting up, it's the
> whole debate about global warming. Especially now
> that we can see and feel its effects every day. Yet
> you've probably noticed that when it comes to taking
> action, the focus always seems to be on what each of
> us can do personally. We the people must use
> energy-saving light bulbs, fly less, recycle, use
> green energy, take our appliances off standby, and
> so on. But perhaps, like me, these entreaties leave
> you feeling a bit ripped off. Perhaps you, too, are
> wondering what part business, industry and
> governments have to play? It's certainly true that
> there are things individual citizens can and must
> do, but surely really significant reductions
> ultimately depend on tough, international
> legislative action. After all, if personal
> responsibility were all that has ever been necessary
> to solve problems, why were political systems and
> governments invented in the first place? Once we've
> taken individual action, is that it? Or is there
> more to be done? What really seems to be needed is a
> way of acting collectively to ensure that
> governments around the world start co-operating to
> solve global warming instead of talking more hot air
> while the planet burns.
> 
> 
> 
> In his film, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore rightly
> points out that collective action depends on
> political will, but this, he says, is in short
> supply. Right again! The reasons for its scarcity,
> he suggests, are that it's simply not in the
> short-term interests of the main polluting nations
> and their industries to take substantive action. So
> far so good, but the cartoon image he uses to hammer
> his point home is an unfortunate one: a pair of
> scales with gold bars on one side and the entire
> planet on the other. Gore uses this to demonstrate
> the absurdity of those who see economic prosperity
> and a healthy planet as an either/or choice: after
> all, what value could gold bars have if there's no
> habitable planet in which to enjoy them? It's
> plainly ridiculous, and so too, suggests Gore, is
> the reluctance of some to give up the gold bars.
> 
> 
> 
> But rather than ridicule those who fear for their
> short-term interests, shouldn't we be trying to look
> at what may be their perfectly legitimate point, and
> trying to understand the forces that keep it
> relevant? Gore may have faced the inconvenient truth
> of global warming, but he is yet to face a second
> inconvenient truth: that stiff action on the part of
> the rich countries WILL have adverse economic
> effects, at least in the short term. And if global
> warming is dealt with in isolation, those costs WILL
> fall heaviest on the USA and on other big polluters.
> To deny the barrier to action that these short-term
> costs and disincentives represent, as Gore seems to,
> is to fall into the same trap as those who deny
> global warming itself.
> 
> 
> 
> I laughed along with everyone else when I saw the
> gold vs earth cartoon, but making fun of those who
> are wary of economic backlash is hardly likely to
> elicit the consensus Gore seeks. It also seems like
> a cheap shot when you keep in mind that had Gore
> actually become President in 2000, he would
> inescapably have joined the ranks of those he's
> poking fun at. The president of the U.S. has only
> four years before facing another election, so Gore's
> popularity and tenure in office would have been
> directly influenced by his corporate funders and
> their support for short-term gains to the US
> economy. 
> 
> 
> 
> Today, there may only be few people who still cling
> to denying global warming. But knowledge and
> acceptance can't effect change by themselves. What
> is urgently needed is a means to unlock the
> short-term barriers and disincentives that prevent
> decisive collective action - nationally and
> internationally. Make no mistake: in today's
> globalised and largely borderless world, capital and
> jobs generally move to wherever in the world
> environmental and social costs are lowest and
> profits therefore highest. Any government moving
> first to significantly increase environmental costs
> or regulations in a bid to reduce emissions would
> definitely see investment and jobs moving elsewhere,
> thus making the nation uncompetitive. That's why
> nothing changes except the level of carbon dioxide
> in the atmosphere just keeps on rising. Prime
> Minister Tony Blair at least seemed to recognise
> these realities when he pointed out that "The blunt
> truth about the politics of climate change is that
> no country will want to sacrifice its economy in
> order to meet this challenge".[i]
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike Gore, Blair clearly recognises this second
> inconvenient truth and he should not be blamed for
> stating it. But his statement only holds true IF
> nations fail to act together. This is the barrier
> that keeps the gold bars firmly on one side of the
> scales. However, if all nations co-operated, the
> necessary regulations could be implemented without
> any nation fearing capital or employment flight
> because there would be no low-cost haven for them to
> run to. Corporations, too, would have nothing to
> fear because all corporations would be subject to
> the same additional costs, so maintaining their
> relative competitiveness and their relative
> profitability. Think about that for a minute.
> 
> 
> 
> But there is a further problem: the biggest
> polluter, the USA, would have the biggest adjustment
> cost, so it has the least incentive to sign up to
> any cooperative agreement. This is why the Kyoto
> Protocol is not supported by the USA and Australia,
> another big polluter. It is also why the provisions
> of the Kyoto agreement are so mild and relatively
> ineffectual. Because if the nations supporting Kyoto
> agreed to tougher, more significant curbs, the costs
> involved would make them uncompetitive with nations,
> such as the USA and Australia, who refuse to
> participate.
> 
> 
> 
> The net result is a recipe for missed targets and an
> intergovernmental dead-lock of a kind which raises
> the third, final and most important inconvenient
> truth; this time one that concerns not so much
> governments or businesses but each of us as
> individual citizens. It's a truth which all citizens
> around the world must urgently take on board: that
> we can no longer abdicate responsibility for taking
> collective action to politicians and governments
> alone. If free-riding governments are to be
> compelled to co-operate, then it must be citizens
> who force them to do so. We have no choice but to
> take the initiative, and stop assuming that
> politicians are in the driving seat of the global
> economy. It's time to grab hold of the steering
> wheel and find a way of driving our politicians and
> governments toward co-operation. What's needed is a
> method of achieving cooperation which removes the
> barriers and objections, takes away the fears of
> being uncompetitive, and replaces those fears with
> an enthusiasm for shared problem-solving. 
> 
> 
> 
> When Al Gore became fully aware of the dangers of
> global warming, he travelled far and wide to gain a
> deeper understanding of the science and its
> real-world effects, and justifiably so (although I
> do hope he planted plenty of trees to personally
> offset his carbon emissions). But Gore and the rest
> of us have so far failed to embark on another, far
> more urgent line of enquiry. If we genuinely wish to
> solve global warming and other global problems, we
> need to gain a deeper understanding of the barriers
> to collective government action under globalisation.
> For the deeper truth is that global warming and
> many other global "problems" are not the real
> problems at all. They are merely symptoms, albeit
> terrifying ones, of our failure as a global human
> society to co-operate. Until we understand the
> dynamics of co-operation and how to achieve it, and
> what we as citizens can do to unblock the barriers
> to it, international inaction, missed targets and
> deepening chaos will continue and global warming may
> well destroy human civilisation. 
> 
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
>
http://globaljusticemovement.net/mailman/listinfo/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net
> 

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
http://globaljusticemovement.net/mailman/listinfo/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net

---------------------------------
Sponsored Link

Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $310,000 Mortgage for $999/mo -  Calculate new house payment
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net/attachments/20061116/26230e0b/attachment-0001.html 