Asian Surveying & Mapping
Breaking News
China Launches Earth Observation Satellite Gaofen-13 02 for Remote Sensing
China on Friday sent a new Earth observation satellite...
ISRO to conduct young scientist programme in Bengaluru
The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) is organising a...
Egypt launches second remote-sensing satellite from China
The Egyptian Space Agency’s CEO, Sherif Sedky, announced the...
Israeli-developed DRONE DOME to secure Dubai from aerial attacks
Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. is supplying the system...
China launches 2nd Horus remote-sensing satellite for Egypt (video)
China has launched a second remote-sensing satellite for Egypt,...
China obstructs new subsea cable to Taiwan
Southeast Asia-Japan Cable 2 connecting Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong,...
Scientific collaboration between China and US key to tackling climate change, experts say
Efforts to combat climate change bore the brunt of...
ISRO Receives India-US Jointly Built NISAR Earth Observation Satellite, Begins Preparations For Launch
US space agency NASA has handed over NISAR earth...
ISRO conducts parachute deployment tests on rail tracks for Gaganyaan Mission
Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has conducted Rail Track...
OceanX helps Riyadh boost best up-and-comers in GEOINT
The Saudi Space Commission has given OceanX the difficult...

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