Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Economic Costs of Climate Change ‘Will Affect Every American’
Haider Rizvi, One World
NEW YORK – Independent economists and environmentalists are warning of dire consequences for the U.S. economy if policy makers fail to take urgent action on climate change.
“Climate change will effect every American economically in a significant and dramatic way,” said Matthias Ruth, director of the University of Maryland’s Center for Integrative Environmental Research.
In a new study released this week, Ruth observed that further delays in tackling climate change would not only cause greater damage to the U.S. economy, but would also raise the future cost of dealing with natural disasters.
The authors of the study, entitled “The U.S. Economic Impacts of Climate Change and the Costs of Inaction,” say their efforts to analyze the economic research done in the past and pull in other relevant data make the study the first of its kind.
The costs of climate change inaction is likely to be much higher than the required spending on cuts in carbon emissions, the report’s authors said, adding that the United States can expect to lose hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to its infrastructure, agriculture, and manufacturing sector if more isn’t done soon to slow climate change.
(18 October 2007)
Also at Common Dreams.
Corporations Won’t Lead the Way on Solving Global Warming
Robert B. Reich, Common Dreams
Al Gore’s campaign against global warming, for which he just received the Nobel Peace Prize, has encouraged many corporations to “go green” and become environmentally friendly. But do these companies deserve to be praised? And can we rely on corporations to lead the way on global warming? The answer is: No and no.
Gore deserves kudos, but it’s absurd to praise the corporations that are going green. Consider British Petroleum, which a few years ago shortened its name to BP and has promoted itself with a $200 million ad campaign as the environmentally friendly oil company that will go “Beyond Petroleum.” So far, though, it’s invested a tiny fraction of its oil profits in non-fossil based fuels, and caused the worst oil spill in the history of Alaska’s fragile north slope. Going green for public relations might help the bottom line but doesn’t help the environment.
Other companies are going green because they can save money that way. By using new cleaner technologies, for example, Dow Chemical lowers its energy costs and reduces carbon emissions. By packaging its fresh produce in plastics made from corn sugar instead of petroleum, Wal-Mart also cuts costs. Alcoa saves some hundred million dollars a year by reducing its energy use, thereby helping the environment. I think it’s great these and other companies are cutting their costs and increasing profits, but this is what companies are supposed to do. It’s called good management.
Some investment banks and private-equity firms are going green because they anticipate regulations that will make green pay off and reduce returns from companies that don’t go green.
…So don’t expect corporations to lead the charge on global warming. That’s government’s job. And next time you hear a company boast about how environmentally friendly it is, hold the applause.
Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. …
(18 October 2007)
Think tank outlines policy that can benefit low-income families, federal budget (Video and transcript)
E&E TV
How will a cap-and-trade policy affect low income families? What will it mean for the federal budget?
During today’s E&ETV Event Coverage, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities presents a report on the importance of fiscal responsibility when creating a climate policy and the effect it could have on the poor.
Panelists include, Robert Greenstein, founder and executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; David Doniger, policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council Climate Center; Chad Stone, chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; and Martha Coven, senior legislative associate at the Center on Budget and
(18 October 2007)
