Actually, it probably wouldn't be such a drag. Between 0.1 and 2% of GDP - and that's ignoring the direct benefits (like less violent and extreme weather conditions, coastal flooding, massive drought) as well as spin-off benefits (better fuel cells, etc).
The leading scientific body involved is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), chaired by Dr Robert Watson. He told journalists in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, where the IPCC is meeting, that tackling climate change need not be nearly so expensive as Mr Bush appears to believe.
Dr Watson said half the expected increase in greenhouse gases between now and 2020 could be prevented at no cost at all. "We have seen a significant advance in technologies in the last five years, hydrogen power, fuel cell technologies, a wide range of technologies that have succeeded at a faster rate than we thought", he said.
If industrialised countries took the least cost-effective steps, Dr Watson said, the total cost of meeting their Kyoto commitments would be from 0.2 to 2% of gross domestic product. The most cost-effective measures would cut the cost to between 0.1 and 1% of GDP.
"It is up to individual governments to decide if 0.1 or less, or 1% of GDP, is a large economic cost", Dr Watson said.
...
And Dr Watson rejected the claim that the scientific community was evenly divided on the reality and gravity of climate change. He said he thought something like 98% of scientists supported the IPCC's analysis.
news.bbc.co.uk
<edit> but obviously if anyone wants a debate on it, the BR is open rather than annoy you here... sorry to intrude. |
