“Ahead of Davos 2013, World Economic Forum calls on policymakers to step up efforts to tackle three biggest dangers” (Source: The Guardian)
Interesting report – my favorite quote from the press release: "Two storms – environmental and economic – are on a collision course". Wonder which one will rule; man or nature?
US economic growth will be less than 1% in the next fourty years according to a new analysis by famous American investor Jeremy Grantham. The contrarian investor sees resource scarcity and higher resource prices as well as demographic factors as the main reason why our global economies will continue to struggle for new economic growth. (Source: Business Insider)
As always the gloomy predictions of Mr Grantham’s piece make a lot of sense but will be neglected by the "don’t worry, be happy" myopic political and economic elites.
“Like the Ghost of Christmas Future, the World Bank has just provided us with a frightening glimpse into our world-to-be if, unlike Scrooge, we fail to change our ways.” (Source: Huffington Post)
The new World Bank report "Turn down the heat: why a 4°C warmer world must be avoided" stands in stark contrast to all fossil-fuel friendly policies of this and other international and national governance bodies. And the silence in the media about the coming Doha summit on climate change is deafening.
"So the real trade-off, the real choice we face, is not between climate protection on one hand and economic growth on the other. It’s between planned economic contraction (with government managing the post-carbon transition through infrastructure investment and useful make-work programs) as a possible but unlikely strategy, and unplanned, unmanaged economic and environmental collapse as our default scenario." (Source: Energy Bulletin)
Richard Heinberg on why neither President Obama nor influential NGOs to tell citizens the inconvenient truth. Without that courage, the transition will be chaotic and will cost the world.
“The US could become self-sufficient, while 90% of Middle Eastern oil could go to China, according to new estimates…” (Source: The Guardian)
Yes and pigs CAN fly. I would like to know how much pressure was put on Fatih Birol and his team to produce this PR report for big oil. Any investigative journalist can go after the real story behind this? And if the figures are correct, get ready for more and faster climate collapse.
Read the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2012 pages.
Critical coverage of this report can be found here (more later):
“Some 85 percent of companies have more complex supply chains as a result of globalization, and adjusted climate forecasts mean businesses should expect climate change to have an even more destructive effect than previously assumed on supply chains, assets and infrastructure, according to two reports from PricewaterhouseCoopers” (Source: Environmental Leader)
Two new remarkable reports by PricewaterhouseCoopers paint a scary 6-degrees climate future and economic turmoil for global business. High time one of the big consultancies goes beyond the usual "let’s keep it positive" approach and starts talking reality.
See also The Guardian: Business warned to prepare for catastrophic impacts .
The two PwC reports are: “Risk Ready: New approaches to environmental and social change” (Nov 2012) and “Low Carbon Economy Index 2012: too late for two degrees?” (Nov 2012).
“So we have no historical precedents for anything greater than 1% per annum reduction in emissions. We’re saying we need nearer 10% per annum, and this is something we need to be doing today. And therefore, we can draw a very clear conclusion from this, that in the short to medium term, the way for the Annex 1, the wealthy parts of the world to meet their obligations to 2°C, is to cut back very significantly on consumption. And that would therefore mean in the short to medium term a reduction in our economic activity i.e. we could not have economic growth.” (Source: Transition Culture)
Good interview of Kevin Anderson of the UK’s Tyndall Centre. Main message: effectively tackling climate change and economic growth are NOT compatible.
“The global financial crisis offers a big opportunity for progressive politicians to reenergise the green agenda.” (Source: Policy Network)
British energy expert Dieter Helm provides a good analysis of why EU climate policy has failed to make a difference but his plea for "green growth" suffers from technology optimism and belief in the overhyped gas eldorado.
“From the outset Kyoto made Europe look good¬—and hence could be presented as a political “success”. But much was “smoke and mirrors”. Europe has been exiting energy intensive industries, and these have moved to developing countries like China. … But sadly reducing carbon production in Europe does not — and has not — made much difference to global emissions. Europe just imports the carbon instead – so carbon consumption replaced carbon production.” …
“None of the existing technologies are likely to meet the decarbonisation challenge. There simply is not enough land and shallow water for wind or biofuels to make a difference. Current renewables just can’t do it. So we need future renewables, and the good news is that on the technology front there are lots and lots of opportunities. What Europe should do is take some of the hundreds of billions being spent on current expensive renewables and spend it on the future renewables and technologies — on things like the next generation of solar, on batteries, on smart information systems, electric cars and on a host of new concepts.”
"One question that stops conversations cold is, ‘What if our greatest societal challenge is not climate but growth?’
Climate change is really just an ambiguous term or understatement for the problem at the root of our energy production and consumption, which is growth in energy use, economic/population expansion, and environmental degradation resulting in overshoot that is vulnerable to collapse.” (Source: Energy Bulletin)
Interesting reflections on how all the energy spent on dealing with climate change distracts us from the real root cause of our "great disruption".
Economic impact of global warming is costing the world more than $1.2 trillion a year, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP… (Source: The Guardian)
By 2030, the researchers estimate, the cost of climate change and air pollution combined will rise to 3.2% of global GDP, with the world’s least developed countries forecast to bear the brunt, suffering losses of up to 11% of their GDP.
Read the press release published by DARA and the Climate Vulnerable Forum.