Tuesday, October 6, 2009 - 1:50 PM
Today, the International Energy Agency said that global carbon emissions shrank 3 percent in 2009, due to the Great Recession. The Guardian reports that for only the fourth time in the past 50 years, the world emitted less of the greenhouse gas than it had done the year before, because of declining industrial production.
Which means, alas, that the world will likely be back to increasing emissions soon. Indeed, the IEA report notes that to avoid climate change and all the catastrophes it promises, countries don't have to shrink their economies, but do have to "[build] more than 350 new nuclear plants and 350,000 wind turbines in the next 20 years. [It] also estimates that by 2020, three-fifths of cars will need to use alternatives to the traditional internal combustion engine."
The IEA report reminded me of a fascinating study out of the London School of Economics, released last month. It found that promoting contraceptive use could be a lynchpin to combating climate change: fewer babies means fewer carbon-emitters, and fewer carbon-emitters means less climate change.
That, in turn, reminds me of this. Oh dear.
This article does possess some irony. If you really believe that there is some kind of damage created by carbon emissions than a reduction in emissions can only be taken care of by a recession (lack of productivity). Are we willing to reduce productivity (by other means) on something many scientists don't believe is happening (damage caused by carbon emissions)? casino online
Thanks you post ,I think it's helpful to me .and hope write more and more good post.abercrombie fitch Women's Sweater
Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.
Read More
(2)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE