As one would expect,
this story from the BBC hasn't gotten the attention it deserves. But it will.
In today's political climate, the only hope for meaningful global climate action lies in profitability. The unholy alliances between government and corporate interests have resulted in diminished funding for "science for science sake." Companies typically will not fund projects that aren't likely to return a profit, and so only government can can be counted on to truly advance science.
But today, a U.K. economist -- Sir Nicholas Stern -- is finally stating what scientists have known for a decade: "An international plan to tackle climate change is needed to prevent a global recession." And in that statement lies hope.
Here are just a few snippets to whet your appetite. Stern's report states that:
"...not doing anything would be a reduction in the value of the global economy of 20% - we would all be a fifth poorer as a result of climate change - which...would be as big a shock as...from a global war."
A long business model is very short (30 years or so) compared to a short climate model of about a 1000 years. So it's hard to get corporate executives to grasp that destroying the atmosphere to keep down costs is a far shorter solution than they expect. In addition, big corporations that can affect public policy don't typically have their corporate headquarters in poor countries.
What big business repeatedly fails to realize is that inevitably the wealthy end up footing the bill when poor people suffer, and outsourcing American jobs is nothing more than a way for U.S. corporations to keep costs down by exploiting people without means and/or government protections. Globally, that model increases poverty and nurtures a generation of business leaders who view the world's most disadvantaged as disposable assets. But this bottom-line driven morality is going to back-fire:
"Without action up to 200 million people could become refugees as their homes are hit drought or flood..."
"The Stern Review forecasts that 1% of global gross domestic product (GDP) must be spent on tackling climate change immediately.
"Failure to act early could end up costing between 5% and 20% of global GDP and render large parts of the planet uninhabitable with poor nations hit first and hardest."
Or in other words, if Florida is submerged over the next 100 years, most of its inhabitants can be relocated. But God help Bangladesh.
But finally -- FINALLY -- an economist is embracing the most terrifying and disturbing aspect of global climate change, that which the scientific community has been saying since the start of the millennium. Sadly, he still has the numbers wrong:
"Even if immediate action is taken to cut pollution, slow acting greenhouse gases will continue to have an effect on the environment for another 30 years..."
The number is probably more like 100 years, and in truth only that low if we take immediate and drastic action, instead of waiting until after the inevitable firestorm Sir Nicholas Stern's report will set ablaze.