Here’s an executive summary of Stern to assist with the skimming and PDF issues.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Leaving aside what I thought was the case, which is that Kyoto-sized cuts aren’t going to be enough but just the first step, do you think that there is a one for one comparison possible between what a single company can do, and an entire nation?
[/quote]
I hate to sound trite, but “a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step” and all that. If you agree that AGW is a reality, then you’d surely agree that we’ve got to start somewhere, even if that first step is a long way from what’s really needed. But refusing to do anything because that first step is inadequate is crazy! Strikes me that the current US government has been doing this. Whereas actually if the US signed, it wouldn’t be fair, but it would be a massive step towards persuading the Chinese and Indian governments to get their shit together. And in fact, if this year’s Reith Lectures have a kernel of truth in them, China might actually get the jump on the US in policy in the next few decades, which would be a huge PR coup - once China has stopped building fucking coal-fired power stations at the rate of one a week…
The problem is fucking enormous. But it’s not infeasible at a national level. That’s what I work in: a series of UK initiatives that help, for free, businesses and individuals to reduce emissions, resource usage, and waste. And we’ve got some absolutely ENORMOUS clients about to get on board. For professional reasons I can’t say which companies, but I can guarantee they’re global, and you will have heard of them. There are two reasons for this: a) it’s great marketing, and b) they’ve figured out that far from being a burden, it actually saves them a heap of money.
Yes indeed, but to be honest, personal transport is the minority part of the problem - 5-10% I think? With air travel another 5%. In personal terms you’ve got to admit, a 1.2 or 1.6 litre engine is WAY cheaper to run (and buy) than a 6 litre SUV or sports car. And it emits a hell of a lot less CO[sub]2[/sub]. So taking this into account, what are the implications on vehicle manufacturers and oil producers of droves of people buying more fuel-efficent vehicles - economically devastating?
Not really. The oil producers are up to their arses in alternative fuel technology research already, because they know what’s coming, so they’ll benefit across the board. While the car manufacturers will still manage to have a host of luxury marques, but using more efficient engines. We’re already doing it here to a certain extent anyway.
Yup. Energy generation is the biggest problem. And it’s massive. Electricity is the way it will go, and IMO nuclear. The coal-fired power stations being built in China are the scariest part of that, but so are all our energy production methods.
It’ll take buy-in. Which is why the US should ratify Kyoto, and then join us in using this as leverage to lean on the Asian industrial centres to clean up their act. And this is the recommendation:
