Asian Surveying & Mapping
Breaking News
Astranis clinches $115 million Taiwan deal despite satellite setback
TAMPA, Fla. — Astranis has signed a $115 million...
UAE and Egypt Strengthen Space Collaboration with New MoU
In a milestone development for Arab space collaboration, the...
Seoul launches 4th spy satellite to boost North Korea surveillance
South Korea’s military now operates an increasingly integrated cluster...
Indonesia seeks space defense cooperation with Japan’s military
Jakarta (ANTARA) - The Ministry of Defense of Indonesia...
China Launches 3 Astronauts To Its Space Station
The spacecraft Shenzhou-20 and the crew lifted off atop...
Former Isro chairman K Kasturirangan dies in Bengaluru at 84
Dr. Kasturirangan led the Isro, the Space Commission, and...
South Korea is converting an abandoned coal mine into a moon exploration testing ground
South Korea is transforming abandoned coal mines into testing...
ISRO to Launch Chandrayaan-5 With Japan, Plans Space Station
Dr. V. Narayanan, Chairman of the Indian Space Research...
Russia and China are threatening SpaceX’s Starlink satellite constellation, new report finds
SpaceX's Starlink satellite constellation is facing threats from Russia...
China and Pakistan agree to fly 1st foreign astronaut to Chinese space station
For the first time, the Chinese space program will train...

June 16th, 2007
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

For example, a sacrifice of between one and two years’ economic growth could mean a cut of 50 per cent in emissions by 2050.

The report of Working Group I, in February, suggested that stabilising CO2 at 450-500 ppm would see global GDP grow by 345 per cent, to 2050. With no action at all, it would grow by 350 per cent, only a negligible increase.

The report suggests that the carbon price needed to achieve this would be, at most, US $50 per tonne of carbon dioxide. This implies that petrol prices would increase by 4-10 cents a litre, and electricity by 2-5 cents a kilowatt hour, depending on the government’s tax regime.

These are the costs of cutting emissions. It does not take into account the economic benefits of minimising climate change. The report urges caution in making judgements in the absence of more studies. But it concludes that even in the worst case, the costs of reducing carbon emissions will be less than the likely damage.

This is the same conclusion as the Stern Review. Even in purely economic terms, it makes sense to sharply cut emissions.

But a British bureaucrat wrote the Stern review; Western interests heavily influenced the IPCC report. How will regional governments react?

They should welcome it. The report eliminates the main reason – the cost – that governments have given for refusing to take measures to cut emissions.

It might be worth thinking about if you are stepping into the fumes of Beijing or Jakarta this morning.

Headlines