Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Nicholas Stern: Time for a green industrial revolution - risks…even greater than we…recognised

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 03:18 PM
Original message
Nicholas Stern: Time for a green industrial revolution - risks…even greater than we…recognised
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126926.600-comment-time-for-a-green-industrial-revolution.html

Comment: Time for a green industrial revolution

21 January 2009 by Nicholas Stern

Video: http://www.newscientist.com/articlevideo/mg20126926.600/8689061001-comment-time-for-a-green-industrial-revolution.html">Green industrial revolution

Read the accompanying news article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16433-launch-green-economic-revolution-now-says-stern.html">Launch the green economic revolution

AS THE world faces up to the worst global financial crisis since the 1930s, the economic case for tackling the global climate crisis is more compelling than ever. Fortunately, our ability to respond has also increased as we embark upon a technological revolution that will drive sustainable growth and development of a low-carbon global economy.

Since my colleagues and I published the http://www.occ.gov.uk/activities/stern.htm">Stern Review on the economics of climate change in 2006, it has become apparent that the risks and potential costs are even greater than we originally recognised. Global emissions of greenhouse gases are growing more quickly than projected, the ability of the planet to absorb those gases now appears lower than was assumed, the potential increases in temperatures due to rising gas concentrations seem higher, and the physical impacts of a warming planet are appearing at a faster rate than expected.

So, whereas our review http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10405-top-economist-counts-future-cost-of-climate-change.html">recommended that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases should be stabilised within a range of 450 to 550 parts per million of carbon dioxide-equivalent, it now seems that our target should not exceed 500 ppm. That's if we are to keep down the risks of potentially catastrophic impacts which could result from average global temperatures rising 4 °C or more above pre-industrial levels. Over the longer term, it is important to limit concentrations more tightly still.

This means that annual global emissions must peak within the next 15 years before falling to half their 1990 level by 2050. Beyond that, we will need to limit human additions to atmospheric greenhouse gases to under 10 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent per year, compared with the current 45 gigatonnes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC