 |
| Climate Change: Business is the Solution |
|
| Written by Tom Glendening | |
| Thursday, 04 January 2007 | |
|
The US government says climate change is uncertain and addressing it will hurt the US economy. In contrast, the UK government says addressing climate change will cost 1% of global GDP every year, but that not addressing it will cost up to 20% each year. A Tufts University report estimates the cost of climate change to be $20 trillion, but an older Yale study says Russia’s GDP may actually increase 11% due to climate change. Economists are all over the map when it comes to climate change and the economy.  Climate change will increasingly affect nearly every industry on every part of the globe in at least three ways: directly (i.e. drought, sea level rise), through increased regulations, and through market perception that climate change is a problem. Technologies that address climate change may collectively be the mother of all disruptive innovation, displacing old dogs. Much of the $2 trillion energy industry will need to be figuratively (and literally) rewired. In the auto industry Chinese upstart Chery may use the fuel cell to leapfrog current internal combustion engine technology and ultimately rival Toyota for global dominance. In the airline industry financially weak companies may falter under onerous carbon taxes (possibly giving an opportunity for AeroVironment), and in the building industry, companies could launch new businesses just to deal with retrofitting building, road and rail foundations damaged by changes in the permafrost. Companies like Exxon may find themselves chronically and ultimately possibly terminally weighed down by lawsuits in the US and the EU. The list of opportunities...and pitfalls, is long. Unlike most economic analysis, everything pertaining to climate change starts with science. The problem is that the science is complex, transcends many disciplines, and is frequently ambiguous and uncertain. However, as a growing number of highly qualified scientists predict fewer than ten years before significant irreversible change occurs, we have to act. Following is a working list of scientific highlights:
This is a working list so that we can start thinking about developing economic and business strategies. We are in this together. If you have ideas, please share them. Next week we will outline the geopolitics of climate change. Comments
(5)
...
written by Ben Hanley , January 08, 2007
Climate change is a hoax. Have you ever listened to Senator Inhofe? All the scientists want is more money for research. They are greedy.
...
written by Joe Kester , January 09, 2007
Great essay! I just saw Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth". This essay parallels the video. SEE the video. Al G makes great use of graphs which makes the content you read here more understandable and more impactful.
A note to Ben--thank your lucky stars you are not a polar bear right now. Senator Inhofe is no expert on global warming--not even arm-chair status. His expertise is in land development, a career politician, and as president of the Quaker Life Insurance Company. Watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and then send the gentleman from Oklahoma a letter telling him to step up to a responsibility he is shirking.
...
written by Brian , January 10, 2007
The first two comments offered here display the typically polarized debate over the severity - or existence - of climate change. Unfortunately, much of the debate in the last two decades - the period in which climate change alarms were first heard beyond the scientific community - has been shaped by a triumvirate of ignorance: a monolithic corporate world in which profits trump responsibility, conservative politicians who are little more than sharecroppers in the corporate fields, and evangelical Christians who alternate between preaching a "why bother" attitude with the imminence of the Second Coming, and emphasizing God's gift to mankind of "dominion" over the earth. What "fundamentalist" Christians often ignore in their interpretation of scripture is its emphasis on "stewardship" within that theme of "dominion." (As an aside, it's important to note that an increasingly vocal splinter group of conservative Christians has abandoned their bloc's anti-environmental stance and begun sounding the environmental trumpet - albeit to the tune of "stewardship of God's resources." If it brings them to the table, I'm not going to argue with their motivation.)
Since Plato's idea of philosopher-kings seems an unlikely course for our hedonistic society, we'll have to find an alternative to address the global issue of climate change and its impact, because it IS, ultimately, a global issue that requires global solutions. The United States acting alone will not solve the problem. Perhaps a more enlightened triumvirate that a) unites scientifically aware governments populated by politicians possessing an intact ethical DNA, b) a global corporate system that recognizes the deleterious effects unallayed climate change can have on the bottom line, and c) grassroots mobilization/education to create a groundswell of public opinion that will influence positively the first two elements in this list. (Realizing this goal will no doubt prove tantamount to dragging some of Plato's cavedwellers into the light. They will prefer the alternate reality of shadows cast on the wall. Let's just hope they, including Ben Hanley, notice when the cave becomes unbearably hot and unlivable.) Upon reflection, the most important element in this group may be the shapers of public opinion. Because if there are enough Al Gores and Tom Glendenings (the author of the op-ed piece), public opinion - and consumer behavior - can tilt the monoliths of government and business into action. A footnote: as a historian and artist, I tend to take the long view on most issues, realizing that if one looks closely enough, there are potent lessons to be learned from the collected data of our cultural histories. Take for example, the works of Pieter Brueghel the Elder, a 16h century Flemish painter. Many of his beautifully rendered images depict a northern Europe that is cold, snow-covered, and ice-bound. This was Brueghel's reality, not merely an artist's fantasy world. Average yearly temperatures during that period were only a few degrees cooler than today - causing scholars to refer to this period (varyingly estimated from 1550 to 1850) as Europe's "Little Ice Age." I won't go into the science that explains this period . . . nor will I address the manifold consequences vis-a-vis economics, health, politics, etc. Just understand that this period was caused by a seemingly miniscule shift in average yearly temperatures. The current threat - with effects potentially magnified by anthropogenic variables - appears much more dire . . . and will likely not inspire a latter-day Brueghel to leave behind paintings of bucolic community life or winter wonderlands.
...
written by Arnaud , January 16, 2007
Right! Polar bears.
A provocative approach would be to ask why the US / world economy should dire for the want of a few hundreds polar bear. Why should we disrupt an already difficult economic environment and make the haves not pay a heavier burden for some lousy penguins? This I could do, if irony and pure facing reality was only what I had left. But luckily, as you all say: science has spoken. So here we go: Unless you've been hibernating for the winter, you have no doubt heard the many alarms about global warming. Now even the Bush Administration is getting into the act, at least judging from last week's decision by Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to recommend that the majestic polar bear be listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. The closer you inspect this decision, however, the more it looks like the triumph of politics over science. "We are concerned," said Mr. Kempthorne, that "the polar bears' habitat may literally be melting" due to warmer Arctic temperatures. However, when we called Interior spokesman Hugh Vickery for some elaboration, he was a lot less categorical, even a tad defensive. The "endangered" designation is based less on the actual number of bears in Alaska than on "projections into the future," Mr. Vickery said, adding that these "projection models" are "tricky business."Apparently so, because there are in fact more polar bears in the world now than there were 40 years ago, as the nearby chart shows. The main threat to polar bears in recent decades has been from hunting, with estimates as low as 5,000 to 10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. But thanks to conservation efforts, and some cross-border cooperation among the U.S., Canada and Russia, the best estimate today is that the polar bear population is 20,000 to 25,000.
...
written by Arnaud , January 16, 2007
Second part to previous post
It also turns out that most of the alarm over the polar bear's future stems from a single, peer-reviewed study, which found that the bear population had declined by some 250, or 25%, in Western Hudson Bay in the last decade. But the polar bear's range is far more extensive than Hudson Bay. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain concluded that the ice bear populations "may now be near historic highs." One of the leading experts on the polar bear, Mitchell Taylor, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory in Canada, has found that the Canadian polar bear population has actually increased by 25% -- to 15,000 from 12,000 over the past decade. Mr. Taylor tells us that in many parts of Canada, "polar bears are very abundant and productive. In some areas, they are overly abundant. I understand that people not living in the North generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears, but those who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like." Those cuddly white bears are the Earth's largest land carnivores. There is no doubt that higher temperatures threaten polar bear habitat by melting sea ice. Mr. Kempthorne also says he had little choice because the threshold for triggering a study under the Endangered Species Act is low. The Bush Administration was sued by the usual environmental suspects to make this decision, which means that Interior will now conduct a year-long review before any formal listing decision is made. Nonetheless, the bears seem to have survived despite many other severe warming and cooling periods over the last few thousands of years. Polar bears are also protected from poaching and environmental damage by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, so there is little extra advantage to the bears themselves from an "endangered" classification. All of which suggests that the real story here is a human one, namely about the politics of global warming. Once a plant or animal is listed under the Endangered Species Act, the government must also come up with an elaborate plan to protect its habitat. If the polar bear is endangered by warmer temperatures, then the environmentalist demand will be that the government do something to address that climate change. Faster than you can say Al Gore, this would lead to lawsuits and cries in Congress demanding federal mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Think we're exaggerating? No sooner had Mr. Kempthorne announced his study than Kassie Siegel of something called the Center for Biological Diversity told the New York Times that "even this Administration" would not be able to "write this proposal without acknowledging that the primary threat to polar bears is global warming and without acknowledging the science of global warming." Her outfit was one of those who had sued the feds in the first place over the polar bears, notwithstanding its location in the frozen tundra of Arizona. But no matter. For want of a few hundred polar bears, the entire U.S. economy could be vulnerable to judicial dictation. With that much at stake, Mr. Kempthorne could have shown a stiffer backbone in resisting this political pressure. At the very least he now has an obligation to ensure that Interior's year-long study be based on real science and the actual polar bear population, rather than rely on computer projections. Any government decision to limit greenhouse gases deserves to be debated in the open, where the public can understand the consequences, not legislated by the back door via the Endangered Species Act. Tag it:           |
|
| Last Updated ( Monday, 12 February 2007 ) |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
| Company Profiles |
| Individual Profiles |
| Movie Reviews |
| Culture-Celebrity |
| Opinions |
| Staff Recommendations |
| Resources |
 ThePanelist Latest Postings Alternative Energy Christian Investing Climate Women Neubert's Trades Social Culture Technology |
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed