The message from today's linked article from Scientific American is clear: invest significantly now in tackling climate change and its worst impacts will likely be avoided. But cautious investments may well be wasted - they simply won't be enough to make a difference. This is the conclusion reached by researchers in Germany and the Netherlands, who studied how much it would take to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above 19th Century levels (generally considered the 'tipping point' for catastrophic impacts). They found there was a 90% chance of meeting this goal with average annual investments of 2% of GDP globally, made from 2005 through to 2100. That's definitely a big commitment... It's a wake-up call to leaders across the world as they consider the consequences for their environmental policies of the global economic downturn. But it's also a hopeful sign, as it underscores the value of acting collectively and boldly today to secure our future. If those same leaders are listening, they may find their policy decisions easier to make...
Monday, December 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
A great piece - indeed, one that offers two different reasons to be hopeful!
First, because it means there IS a realistic (albeit costly and challenging) course of action that can be done to curb climate change.
Second, because of the approach behind the research, which neatly splits facts from values and choices. Too often in political debate the two are merged so, for example, a call to lower taxes is presented as both an ideological imperitive and an economic stimulus; or a bid to universalise healthcare is sold as both a measure to protect an inalienable right and because it is cost-effectiveness. Far better to separate the two, so research (like that in this article) presents a set of informed options, allowing people to apply their values to them. We need value-free research on all sorts of public policy, and this is a hope-inspiring sign of progress towards that.
Seasons greetings to all!
Thanks, Diana - and Happy New Year! Interesting reflections on facts vs values. I see what you are saying about fact-based 'value-free' research, though I suspect that what's required in public policy is a stronger commitment to considering ethics and values, not less... I think it's probably a sign of the maturity of the State in its relationship with its citizenry. And in a way I always think it's a little disappointing - though it seems inevitable and necessary - that arguments for changes that have societal value must be expressed in terms of their economic or 'market' value if they are to win support. I guess I'm a romantic in that respect!
E
Thanks E - romanticism is cool! And yes, measuring everything in monetary terms implies a market system with self-interest at the core, which goes against the general idea of people helping each other.
And it raises an interesting question: if we don't measure the comparative value of social projects by an estimated monetary value, how else can they be compared, and a choice made? It may be possible to guage the amount each choice involves people thinking altruistically - which might be hard to dessicate into monetary terms. (Are there any other terms which allow a comparison but don't allow a money equivalent to be calculated?)
Or perhaps the whole idea of comparison-based social policy is wrong - it implies choosing from a menu when we should be following our hearts!
Post a Comment