Asian Surveying & Mapping
Breaking News
Government is working towards harnessing space technology for development – Bawumia
Government will soon pass the Ghana Space Policy to...
Chinese satellite propulsion startup secures funding as country’s constellation projects grow
HELSINKI — A Chinese satellite electric propulsion company has...
Hancom to launch S. Korea’s first private satellite for integrated image analysis service
SEOUL -- South Korea's first private satellite for earth...
Israel to invest NIS 600 million in spacetech R&D
The Israel Space Agency and Innovation Authority want to...
China’s iSpace Suffers Third Consecutive Failure of Hyperbola-1 Rocket
Friday the 13th was an unlucky day for Chinese...
ISRO is planning a mission to capture the effects of space weather events on Earth’s atmosphere.
The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) has proposed a...
Virgin Orbit to launch Japanese satellite
Virgin Orbit will launch a satellite into space for Japanese...
Plans Unveiled To Better Connect Space Industries In Scotland And The UAE
Edinburgh, Dubai - Globally focused strategic space marketing firm...
UAE, Rwanda sign economic and technical cooperation agreement
Sheikh Shakhboot Bin Nahyan Bin Mubarak Al Nahyan, Minister...
XAG promotes drones in Vietnam to boost rice farming while cutting fertilizer use
CAO LANH, Vietnam - As the monsoon season starts...

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