Asian Surveying & Mapping
Breaking News
Launch of Australia’s 1st orbital rocket, Gilmour Space’s Eris-1, delayed again
Update for 6:15 p.m. ET on July 1: Gilmour Space...
SAASST, UAE Space Agency strengthen scientific partnership
SHARJAH- Prof. Hamid M.K. Al Naimiy, Director of the...
Shubhanshu Shukla to speak to students and ISRO scientists this Friday
Indian astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla will interact with school students...
ISRO hands over 10 advanced technologies to Indian firms in major push for space commercialisation
The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has transferred ten...
DIGIPIN Launched: India Embraces Geospatial Precision in Digital Addressing
IIT Hyderabad (IITH), in partnership with the Department of...
HAL to build, market Isro’s SSLV in landmark deal
New Delhi, Jun 20: In a historic move for...
Taiwan developing space capabilities for all-weather imaging
TAIPEI (TVBS News) — Taiwan is advancing its space...
Honda hails successful test of reusable rocket as it looks to get into the space business
Tokyo — Japan's second-biggest carmaker, Honda, has successfully tested...
China’s space program provides larger platform for broader international cooperation
BEIJING -- Experts from China's manned space program said...
India To Launch $1.5 Billion Joint Earth Mission With NASA In July
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Indian...

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