Action on climate change - short-term pain to avoid long-term devastation

In reply to my post on "Rex Murphy's Bali logic," Kevin says:

If you feel that strongly about it you are completely free to donate your own time and money to the cause. The fact of the mater is though that if Canada were to sign on to this while the US and China are clearly not the consequences would be economic suicide. Ontario's manufacturers already suffering under a strong dollar would move to the unregulated jurisdictions and we would loose the jobs. The CO2 would still be produced and we would have nothing to show for our sacrifices. If this argument seems familiar it is the same argument that was made against the free trade agreement. That industry would move to the low cost unregulated producer. For the US this has certainly been the case as they have lost most of their manufacturing sector.

Kevin, we don't have a choice. We have to find a way to reduce emissions or the economic, social, and environmental consequences will be catastrophic. It's a matter of a manageable amount of pain now or total devastation later. Read the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.

The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response.

This Review has assessed a wide range of evidence on the impacts of climate change and on the economic costs, and has used a number of different techniques to assess costs and risks. From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting.

Climate change will affect the basic elements of life for people around the world – access to water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.

Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.

In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.

The investment that takes place in the next 10-20 years will have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century and in the next. Our actions now and over the coming decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes.

So prompt and strong action is clearly warranted. Because climate change is a global problem, the response to it must be international. It must be based on a shared vision of long-term goals and agreement on frameworks that will accelerate action over the next decade, and it must build on mutually reinforcing approaches at national, regional and international level.

Sir Nicholas Stern isn't some greenie-dogooder. He's a hard-headed economist, Head of the UK's Government Economic Service and former World Bank Chief Economist. His review was commissioned by the UK government. On the launch of the report in October 2006, Stern said:

The conclusion of the Review is essentially optimistic. There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we act now and act internationally. Governments, businesses and individuals all need to work together to respond to the challenge. Strong, deliberate policy choices by governments are essential to motivate change.

But the task is urgent. Delaying action, even by a decade or two, will take us into dangerous territory. We must not let this window of opportunity close.

FYI, I do donate my own time and money to the cause, and I do make a lot of personal sacrifices like not using air conditioning in my home at all, keeping my furnace set at 15C all winter, and not logging my woodlot (which would bring in money that I could really use). And I'm a vegetarian. When I can afford to I'd like to convert my home to completely renewable energy sources. While it's important for individuals to contribute, coordination and leadership from government is essential, and can help individuals with their own efforts.

Canadians, including many businesses and industries, are ready - it's only our government and apparently a big chunk of our media that aren't.