Asian Surveying & Mapping
Breaking News
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi Commissions Genesys Digital Twin Map Stack in His Parliamentary Constituency
Mumbai: The Prime Minister of India, Mr. Narendra Modi, recently...
Geo Connect Asia 2024 to unveil geospatial’s transformative power
Geo Connect Asia (GCA) is set to return to...
Iran launches ‘domestically developed’ imaging satellite from Russia
The launch of Pars 1 is fourth this year,...
Astranis relocating hobbled debut satellite from Alaska to Asia
TAMPA, Fla. — Astranis is moving its debut satellite...
Asia space race heats up as China, Japan and India reach for the stars
After another year of US aeronautics company SpaceX dominating...
Gaganyaan: India names astronauts for maiden space flight
India has unveiled four Air Force pilots who have...
Singapore Airshow – Elbit reveals new MALE UAS
Elbit Systems unveiled its new Hermes 650 Spark medium...
Tokyo launches world’s largest projection mapping display
The world's largest projection mapping display has been launched...
China launched 6G satellite
China launched two experimental satellites into low-Earth orbit earlier...
Esri India to Train 100K Students in Geospatial Technology for Free
Multinational geographic information system company Esri India and independent public policy...

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