+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Education for Liberation! Venceremos Unidos!
Peter S. López, Jr. aka~Peta
Email: peter.lopez51@yahoo.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Come Together! Join Up! Get Involved! Seize the Time!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Humane-Rights-Agenda/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "moderator@PORTSIDE.ORG" <moderator@PORTSIDE.ORG>
To: PORTSIDE@LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG
Sent: Thu, November 5, 2009 6:42:09 PM
Subject: Climate Change Threatens Million of Jobs
What the CBO Isn't Telling Congress: Climate Change
Threatens Million of Jobs
by Joe Uehlein
submitted to portside
While fewer and fewer people are willing to publicly
deny the validity of global warming science, those who
oppose action to protect the climate have taken up a
new strategy: Denying that climate change will have a
major impact on the U.S. economy.
This denial is rejected by most economists who have
studied climate change. In a survey of 144 top climate
economists released November 4, 2009 by the Institute
for Policy Integrity at the New York University School
of Law, 84% agreed that "the environmental effects of
greenhouse gas emissions, as described by leading
scientific experts, create significant risks to
important sectors of the United States and global
economies." A majority stated that sectors that will be
negatively affected include agriculture, fishing,
forestry, insurance, and health services.
But the profound negative economic impact of climate
change is being largely ignored or denied in the
current public policy debate. This denial threatens to
have a significant effect on public policy. For
example, testimony October 14, 2009 by Douglas W.
Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget
Office, states, "Most of the economy involves
activities that are not likely to be directly affected
by changes in climate." He claims that "a relatively
pessimistic estimate for the loss in projected real
gross domestic product is about 3 percent for warming
of about 7o Fahrenheit (F) by 2100." He cites only two
studies, one published in 2004; the other, which he
describes as "The most comprehensive published study,"
was published in 2000, a decade before current research
on the impacts of climate change.
This testimony completely ignores the British
government's 700-page Stern Review, widely regarded as
the most definitive study so far of the economic impact
of global warming, released on October 30, 2006 by
former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern. It
states, "Our actions over the coming few decades could
create risks of major disruption to economic and social
activity, later in this century and in the next, on a
scale similar to those associated with the great wars
and the economic depression of the first half of the
20th century."
The CBO testimony ignores many studies that indicate
significant negative effects of climate change on the
U.S. economy in the coming years. For example, a study
by the University of Maryland found that "the costs of
climate change rapidly exceed benefits and place major
strains on public sector budgets, personal income and
job security. Because of the economic costs of climate
change, we conclude that delayed action (or inaction)
on global climate change will likely be the most
expensive policy option."
The CBO testimony ignores the June 16, 2009 government
report Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S. issued
by the U.S. Global Change Research Program which
described economically devastating results of global
warming already under way:
* More rain is already coming in very heavy events, and
this is projected to increase across the nation. This
would have impacts on transportation, agriculture,
water quality, health, and more;
* Heat waves will become more frequent and intense,
increasing threats to human health and quality of life,
especially in cities;
* Warming will decrease demand for heating energy in
winter and increase demand for cooling energy in
summer. The latter will increase peak electricity
demand in most regions;
* Water resources will be stressed in many regions. For
example, snowpack is declining in the West, and there
is an increasing probability of drought in the
Southwest, while floods and water quality issues are
likely to be more of a problem in most regions;
* In coastal communities, sea-level rise and storm
surge will increase threats to homes and infrastructure
including water, sewer, transportation and
communication systems.
One small example of the way impacts of climate change
are ignored: The CBO testimony states that the "medical
care" sector will be "relatively insulated from climate
effects." Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S.
states on the contrary that "Climate change poses
unique challenges to human health including heat waves
and severe storms, ailments caused or exacerbated by
air pollution and airborne allergens, and many
climate-sensitive infectious diseases."
The CBO testimony also ignores a new study by the Union
of Concerned Scientists Climate Change in the United
States: The Prohibitive Costs of Inaction. After
reviewing effects on flooding, hurricane intensity,
tourism, public health, water scarcity, shipping,
agriculture, energy and infrastructure stress, and
wildfires, the study concludes, "If global warming
emissions continue unabated, every region in the
country will confront large costs from climate change
in the form of damages to infrastructure, diminished
public health, and threats to vital industries
employing millions of Americans . . . These projected
costs of climate change do not include those that are
critical but hard to quantify, such as costs stemming
from changes to ecosystems and the need to relocate
coastal communities."
The CBO testimony acknowledges that "there is a small
possibility that even relatively modest warming could
trigger abrupt and unforeseen effects during the 21st
century that could result in large economic costs in
the United States." It concludes, "The sources and
nature of such abrupt changes, their likelihood, and
their potential impacts remain very poorly understood."
Thereafter it largely disregards such effects as
melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels,
epidemic diseases, and extreme weather events, even
though a great deal of scientific evidence has emerged
on these threats in recent years.
Such denial leads to a deadly miscalculation of the
economic cost of failure to counter global warming. The
CBO acknowledges that "Unchecked increases in
greenhouse-gas emissions" would "probably reduce output
over time, especially later in this century." However,
the CBO concludes that the net effects on GDP of
restricting emissions in the United States are likely
to be negative over the next few decades. That
conclusion results from a total failure to consider the
devastating impact of climate change on the global and
U.S. economies, as revealed for instance in the Stern
Review.
How many epidemics and Katrinas will it take to expose
the myth that the U.S. economy is somehow exempt from
the threats of climate change? And what terrible price
will we pay if we shun the cost of climate protection
but not the far greater cost of climate change?
[Joe Uehlein is the founder of the Labor Network for
Sustainability, dedicated to engaging trade unions,
workers and their allies to support economic, social,
and environmental sustainability. Before founding LNS,
Joe was the Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO's
Industrial Union Department and former director of the
AFL-CIO Center for Strategic Campaigns. Joe is also a
founder and board member of Ceres, a member of the
National Advisory Board of the Union of Concerned
Scientists and a senior advisor to the Blue Green
Alliance.]
_____________________________________________
Portside aims to provide material of interest
to people on the left that will help them to
interpret the world and to change it.
Submit via email: moderator@portside.org
Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit
Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq
Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe
Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe
Account assistance: portside.org/contact
Search the archives: portside.org/archive
To: PORTSIDE@LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG
Sent: Thu, November 5, 2009 6:42:09 PM
Subject: Climate Change Threatens Million of Jobs
What the CBO Isn't Telling Congress: Climate Change
Threatens Million of Jobs
by Joe Uehlein
submitted to portside
While fewer and fewer people are willing to publicly
deny the validity of global warming science, those who
oppose action to protect the climate have taken up a
new strategy: Denying that climate change will have a
major impact on the U.S. economy.
This denial is rejected by most economists who have
studied climate change. In a survey of 144 top climate
economists released November 4, 2009 by the Institute
for Policy Integrity at the New York University School
of Law, 84% agreed that "the environmental effects of
greenhouse gas emissions, as described by leading
scientific experts, create significant risks to
important sectors of the United States and global
economies." A majority stated that sectors that will be
negatively affected include agriculture, fishing,
forestry, insurance, and health services.
But the profound negative economic impact of climate
change is being largely ignored or denied in the
current public policy debate. This denial threatens to
have a significant effect on public policy. For
example, testimony October 14, 2009 by Douglas W.
Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget
Office, states, "Most of the economy involves
activities that are not likely to be directly affected
by changes in climate." He claims that "a relatively
pessimistic estimate for the loss in projected real
gross domestic product is about 3 percent for warming
of about 7o Fahrenheit (F) by 2100." He cites only two
studies, one published in 2004; the other, which he
describes as "The most comprehensive published study,"
was published in 2000, a decade before current research
on the impacts of climate change.
This testimony completely ignores the British
government's 700-page Stern Review, widely regarded as
the most definitive study so far of the economic impact
of global warming, released on October 30, 2006 by
former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern. It
states, "Our actions over the coming few decades could
create risks of major disruption to economic and social
activity, later in this century and in the next, on a
scale similar to those associated with the great wars
and the economic depression of the first half of the
20th century."
The CBO testimony ignores many studies that indicate
significant negative effects of climate change on the
U.S. economy in the coming years. For example, a study
by the University of Maryland found that "the costs of
climate change rapidly exceed benefits and place major
strains on public sector budgets, personal income and
job security. Because of the economic costs of climate
change, we conclude that delayed action (or inaction)
on global climate change will likely be the most
expensive policy option."
The CBO testimony ignores the June 16, 2009 government
report Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S. issued
by the U.S. Global Change Research Program which
described economically devastating results of global
warming already under way:
* More rain is already coming in very heavy events, and
this is projected to increase across the nation. This
would have impacts on transportation, agriculture,
water quality, health, and more;
* Heat waves will become more frequent and intense,
increasing threats to human health and quality of life,
especially in cities;
* Warming will decrease demand for heating energy in
winter and increase demand for cooling energy in
summer. The latter will increase peak electricity
demand in most regions;
* Water resources will be stressed in many regions. For
example, snowpack is declining in the West, and there
is an increasing probability of drought in the
Southwest, while floods and water quality issues are
likely to be more of a problem in most regions;
* In coastal communities, sea-level rise and storm
surge will increase threats to homes and infrastructure
including water, sewer, transportation and
communication systems.
One small example of the way impacts of climate change
are ignored: The CBO testimony states that the "medical
care" sector will be "relatively insulated from climate
effects." Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S.
states on the contrary that "Climate change poses
unique challenges to human health including heat waves
and severe storms, ailments caused or exacerbated by
air pollution and airborne allergens, and many
climate-sensitive infectious diseases."
The CBO testimony also ignores a new study by the Union
of Concerned Scientists Climate Change in the United
States: The Prohibitive Costs of Inaction. After
reviewing effects on flooding, hurricane intensity,
tourism, public health, water scarcity, shipping,
agriculture, energy and infrastructure stress, and
wildfires, the study concludes, "If global warming
emissions continue unabated, every region in the
country will confront large costs from climate change
in the form of damages to infrastructure, diminished
public health, and threats to vital industries
employing millions of Americans . . . These projected
costs of climate change do not include those that are
critical but hard to quantify, such as costs stemming
from changes to ecosystems and the need to relocate
coastal communities."
The CBO testimony acknowledges that "there is a small
possibility that even relatively modest warming could
trigger abrupt and unforeseen effects during the 21st
century that could result in large economic costs in
the United States." It concludes, "The sources and
nature of such abrupt changes, their likelihood, and
their potential impacts remain very poorly understood."
Thereafter it largely disregards such effects as
melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels,
epidemic diseases, and extreme weather events, even
though a great deal of scientific evidence has emerged
on these threats in recent years.
Such denial leads to a deadly miscalculation of the
economic cost of failure to counter global warming. The
CBO acknowledges that "Unchecked increases in
greenhouse-gas emissions" would "probably reduce output
over time, especially later in this century." However,
the CBO concludes that the net effects on GDP of
restricting emissions in the United States are likely
to be negative over the next few decades. That
conclusion results from a total failure to consider the
devastating impact of climate change on the global and
U.S. economies, as revealed for instance in the Stern
Review.
How many epidemics and Katrinas will it take to expose
the myth that the U.S. economy is somehow exempt from
the threats of climate change? And what terrible price
will we pay if we shun the cost of climate protection
but not the far greater cost of climate change?
[Joe Uehlein is the founder of the Labor Network for
Sustainability, dedicated to engaging trade unions,
workers and their allies to support economic, social,
and environmental sustainability. Before founding LNS,
Joe was the Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO's
Industrial Union Department and former director of the
AFL-CIO Center for Strategic Campaigns. Joe is also a
founder and board member of Ceres, a member of the
National Advisory Board of the Union of Concerned
Scientists and a senior advisor to the Blue Green
Alliance.]
_____________________________________________
Portside aims to provide material of interest
to people on the left that will help them to
interpret the world and to change it.
Submit via email: moderator@portside.org
Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit
Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq
Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe
Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe
Account assistance: portside.org/contact
Search the archives: portside.org/archive
2 comments:
These climate justice people are insane. In the Copenhagen Treaty it is expected that the EU will agree to give $150 Billion / year to LCD's or least developed countries to pay for so called climate debt, this is known as climate-justice. These countries are supposed to use this money to build solar panels and wind farms and plant trees. LOL!!! I’m sure they’ll build a few solar panels for the cameras, but I can guarantee the rest of the money will be used to buy arms, build their military and fund their nuclear ambitions. AK47's are going for $4 a piece now that they are made in China, and supposedly none of the climate money will be spent on guns (huh?!). We're also supposed to agree to give billions away for climate debt but instead we'll be arming the world. These climate-justice people, where did they receive their schooling? They are insane.
In the run up to the Copenhagen climate change conference, it is vital the following information be disseminated to the public as well as to our political leaders.
A widely cited 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Livestock's Long Shadow, estimates that 18 percent of annual worldwide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are attributable to livestock….however recent analysis by Goodland and Anhang co-authors of "Livestock and Climate Change" in the latest issue of World Watch magazine found that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions!
www.51percent.org
The main sources of GHGs from animal agriculture are: (1) Deforestation of the rainforests to grow feed for livestock. (2) Methane from manure waste. – Methane is 72 times more potent as a global warming gas than CO2 (3) Refrigeration and transport of meat around the world. (4) Raising, processing and slaughtering of the animal.
Meat production also uses a massive amount of water and other resources which would be better used to feed the world’s hungry and provide water to those in need.
Based on their research, Goodland and Anhang conclude that replacing livestock products with soy-based and other alternatives would be the best strategy for reversing climate change. They say "This approach would have far more rapid effects on GHG emissions and their atmospheric concentrations-and thus on the rate the climate is warming-than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy."
The fact is that we are being informed of the dangerous path we are on by depending greatly on animal flesh for human consumption. We still have the opportunity to make the most effective steps in saving ourselves and this planet. By simply choosing a plant based diet we can reduce our carbon foot print by a huge amount.
We are gambling with our lives and with those of our future generations to come. It's madness to know we are fully aware of the possible consequences but yet are failing to act.
Promoting a plant based diet to the public is would be the most effective way to curb deforestation, we hope this will be adopted as a significant measure to save the rainforests and protect the delicate ecology.
Thank you for your consideration.
Post a Comment