Funding from groups like the GEF and the World Bank can be leveraged to put in place effective decarbonization programs, but to have a real transformation toward low-carbon growth, funding has to come from the private sector, he argued.
The private sector makes up 75 percent of GDP in the United States and around 60 percent globally, said Sukhdev. He recommended shifting corporations' behavior with policies that promote accountable advertising, resource taxation and measures for corporations to disclose the real costs of their actions beyond dollars and cents.
"If today's private sector is pushing the economy in the direction toward resource use ... we want to get our hands around the need to change the way the private sector is incentivized and operates," he said.
"What the world needs is not more money, but money spent better," he added.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
25 Comments
Add CommentGood luck with that... human societies are just not well designed for implementing the kind of change that is necessary. It may be technically straight forward, economically viable and undeniably necessary, but the ignorance, power plays, and short term money interests that control most of the larger policies globally will resist any significant changes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce the damage is done, sea levels have risen, weather patterns turned severe, coasts flooded, croplands withered, and damage costs have surpassed what would have been the prevention costs by an order of magnitude, THEN things might begin to change.
It is a lot easier for a minority of rich interests and/or a minority of willfully ignorant people to prevent change, than it is possible for those in the know to bring positive change about.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try... certainly, fight the good fight, but I wouldn't get my hopes up too high either.
I think most humans have a lot more problems of more immediate concerns than to worry about a slow change caused by global warming. Most humans can't even think about savings for their own retirements much less saving Florida and low lying areas from sure drowning over hundreds of years. They also can't even think of saving their own grand kids by not spending themselves into the poor house--evidence by choosing a destroyer for a President who does nothing but spend spend spend.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA worldwide investment in 10000 new nuclear reactors would be paid for by and would end fossil fuel use, eliminate most air pollution saving millions of lives, end the global warming/ peak oil problem with a 100% elimination of GHG's within a ten year time frame, is a great investment making the economy more efficient, a wonderful job producing economy boost, requires only a small part of our industrial capacity, and pays for itself in less than three years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDeniers and Warmists both could embrace it.
With mass production nuclear power costs drop to under $1B Gw much less expensive than coal or natural gas generation and 10% the cost of the cheapest renewable. Asian reactor builds now around $1.5 B Gw are trending to the $1B level.
Nuclear fuel supply and waste issues are resolved with already operating and well understood fast reactors.
www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/climate-bill-ignores-our_b_221796.html
The US with an $2500B nominal investment in nuclear power paid for by quickly weaning itself off its $1000B annual fossil fuel bill could do the same. Unfortunately it is crippled by inefficient private power companies, a biased Nuclear Rejection Commission and corrupt and litigious political and legal systems, quadrupling nuclear costs and time frames.
Maybe somebody who speaks common sense could persuade one of two of Obama's handlers that can think, of the value of a national energy policy involving the DMSR nuke (thorium) reactor - a great efficient penny a kwh synfuel factory just like that chinese HTGR. With a paltry $two billion in investment diverted from the stupid DOE's $10B's in wacky way out there never never land ethanol and carbon capture nonsense, within 5 years these would be a major energy and industrial benefit.
Google "David LeBlanc - Molten Salt Reactor Designs, Options & Outlook"
This an incredible opportunity for Canada and a lesson to the world in how to get it done.
The biggest problem is a nuclear conversion will put Big Oil out of business in less than ten years and they buy a lot of politicians with their campaign donations.
We need to calling up our politicians and demanding to know the reason for their inaction. Why are they wasting precious time and treasure on silly not so "renewable" projects and even dumber tax schemes like cap n'trade and green taxes.
Are their campaign donations so precious they are choosing to end civilization rather than get off Big Oil's gravy train.
Facts:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are roughly 200 independent nations that govern planet earth.
There are roughly 3 billion people on planet earth without access to electricity of personal transportation.
Is it suprising that there is not a consensus regarding the importance of stopping CO2 emissions when it is not at all clear that a warmer world is actually worse for humanity overall or specifically which nations will benefit or be harmed. Perhaps even more importantly it is very difficult to know if more people will be harmed from proposed mitigation actions that they would be harmed from a change to the climate
Sisko, true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDespite the doom and gloomers there has never been a moment in human history with less death due to climate induced drought, flooding, disease, starvation, etc. Human conditions are WAY better for most of the world's population than ever....especially in China, Brazil, India, Malaysia, etc.
Trying to tie environmnetal degregation and human suffering is a dead end. It rings hollow and only hurts the environment. To be blunt, humans are like rats and cockroaches...we can thrive in just about any conditions... from concrete cities to pesticide-soaked farms. Mothers on both the street of Calcutta and in rural Somalia all have a half dozen viable offspring.
It's silly to tell the people of China or India they are all going to suffer some consequence if...'whatever'. Millions of them used to die every year and no 'consequences' of environmnetal degregation could compete with the trials their lives once faced.
The classic argument why should we care about...blah...blah...'because we will be next' is baloney. The environment will only be a priority once the developing nations come fully on board, a level of affluence is achieved, education, and populations reduced.
According to investor Jeremy Grantham, in a recent interview with Charlie Rose we cannot achiever a higher level of affluence without switching to alternative energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe World Bank issued this statement on the economic implications of climate change. "Without further commitments and action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the world is likely to warm by more than 3°C above the preindustrial climate. Even with the current mitigation commitments and pledges fully implemented, there is roughly a 20 percent likelihood of exceeding 4°C by 2100. If they are not met, a warming of 4°C could occur as early as the 2060s. Such a warming level and associated sea-level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter, or more, by 2100 would not be the end point: a further warming to levels over 6°C, with several meters of sea-level rise, would likely occur….
… a large shock to agricultural production due to extreme temperatures across many regions, along with substantial pressure on water resources and changes in the hydrological cycle, would likely impact both human health and livelihoods. This could, in turn, cascade into effects on economic development by reducing a populatiońs work capacity, which would then hinder growth in GDP. With pressures increasing as warming progresses toward 4°C and combining with nonclimate–related social, economic, and population stresses, the risk of crossing critical social system thresholds will grow. At such thresholds existing institutions that would have supported adaptation actions would likely become much less effective or even collapse. “
Turn Down the Heat, Why a 4oC Warmer World Must be Avoided A report by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research & Climate Analytics for World Bank)Nov 2012
http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf
Stonington, CT?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the people hit by Hurricane Sandy would beg to differ. The storm was made more likely and more severe by climate change. We're feeling the effects of our GHG emissions ALREADY and having a hurricane blow your house away would make it a wee bit difficult to save for retirement, right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, until now I only SUSPECTED that climate deniers were psychopaths...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother Climatewire article that avoids the "N-word" as usual. World Bank has been a prominent supporter of giant Coal Burners in the Developing World and has steadfastly refused to support Nuclear, the ONLY viable alternative to Fossil Fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is all just more SMOKE-AND-MIRRORS.
And speaking of Deniers, how about Sault's denial that the Sierra Club took $26 million from Chesapeake Energy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/science/earth/after-disclosure-of-sierra-clubs-gifts-from-gas-driller-a-roiling-debate.html?_r=0
Good link, seems everyone knows about that but Sault. The man is in denial as usual about his super-rich ENGO benefactors. Note another $30M was in the pipeline to the Sierra Club and the former head was a member of the National Petroleum Council.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd don't believe the spin that they claim the donations were for just anti-Coal activities of the Sierra Club, undoubtedly they were also funding the anti-Nuclear activities as well. No doubt, Chesapeake claims its all about stopping that nasty Coal pollution, its all about saving the babies, yep, yep, wouldn't have anything to do with Coal & Nuclear being the competition for their product, no, no, don't believe that, no,no. How about all of that fracking carcinogenic & radio-isotope emissions from their fracking operations dumped in big ponds right on family farms, without their permission, causing tragic health effects.
Agreed. Good to see the rationalists winning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisColdest UK March in 50 years!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://tinyurl.com/cdzhn8c
Most of Southern Canada under 40-50 inches of snow!
http://tinyurl.com/cqow7bn
Worst winter storm in 150 years – Belarus grinds to a halt
http://tinyurl.com/ay8e6ez
Global Temperature Standstill Is Real - Dr David Whitehouse
http://www.thegwpf.org/report-global-temperature-standstill-real/
Worst E. Europe March Snowstorm in Decades:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2013/03/201331785050917332.html
31,000 Scientists reject Global Warming
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
This just in: Deniers spam comment threads with long-debunked fossil fuel talking points while ignoring MOUNTAINS of REAL scientific evidence! A lie can get around the world before the truth can even get its pants on! Film at 11!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, I don't think they should have taken the money and the new director put the kibosh on it when he came into office. So what does it even matter? Yeah, it's great that you agree that corporate money shouldn't be used to peddle influence. So how come you don't cry foul with the $100M+ that the fossil fuel companies threw into the last election (probably more because of all the anonymous corporate cash that Citizen's United opened to floodgates for)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd again, why are you trying to change the subject? Neither the Sierra Club, nor the Club for "Growth" and every other group in between getting corporate money are relevant to this discussion. What matters is that we are irreversibly changing the climate and it is extremely difficult to get people to take on long term challenges like this. Either stay on-topic or take your distractions elsewhere.
Wow, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about! CCS would deplete atmospheric oxygen? That's rich! And what does this even mean? "I would rather have a repeat of the PETM and the 75% north pole all completely naturally..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're utterly incoherent and Dr. sault perscribes 2 peer-reviewed climate science papers a day until you can string one scientifically legitimate sentence together!
Sault, how can those links by jimmywat all be "long debunked" as you stated, when the first five of the six are news from the last week? At least make your lies plausible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Weather is not climate, 2) it often snows more with higher temperatures, 3) the UK is a mere data point, and 4) the "31,000 scientists" reference is utter bullshit. I don't even want to take the time to explain why, because the explanation demeans us both.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe had a survey come around our offices on climate change. No idea why our opinion would matter a hoot since none of us had ever taken a course in climatology. Like one old doctor emeritus said...'I stick my head out the window at athat's al I know'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'X' number if scientist means zip...what matters is actual science. 'X' number of Christians believe in a dead-guy-on-a-stick...has the same weight in describing reality....zip.
Science isn't about popularity.
A conference at the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences notes that the incremental steps taken to address global warming are not enough
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy Julia Pyper <http: // www.scientificamerican.com/author.cfm? id=2984> and ClimateWire <http: // www.scientificamerican.com/author.cfm? id=2308>
The past of a planet includes: stage I - when the Earth was in other Galaxy, stage I has terminated, when the Earth (with inhabitants) casually appeared in Solar system. At call into an orbit of the Sun practically all planet has fused, from now on the escaped inhabitants now appeared on a flexible, thin environment of a planet (Ms) which during III stage repeatedly turned in an equatorial plane. Thus, II stage has terminated - in change of radius of a planet and the geographical kind of a planet has cardinally changed. During III stage has proceeded (9 cycles) the new natural phenomenon, thus the total weight of ice domes changed in limits-
(150 - 450 million кm3), accordingly the level of Ocean also changed, but, III stage has terminated in that Ms in a zone of the Southern polar circle "has burnt through", thus practically on a planet the thermal stream of bowels - has fused all ice, the level of Ocean has raised almost on (500 meters). Naturally IV stage began from an extraordinary mark of a level of Ocean (+ 15 m), during this stage a level of Ocean has gone down, now the thermal stream of bowels and energy of the Sun (temporarily) stabilize abnormal weight of an ice dome and a present level of Ocean. The dynamic model of the globe has allowed to restore real chronology of changes on a planet accordingly each stage separately, for given time the thermal stream of bowels will define changes which will proceed with the termination of IV stage. Conferences and symposiums are a waste of time for the Science about the past of a planet considers only private events which are not connected and do not reflect real events in the past and future in a general plan,
The PORTION of scientists publishing in a given field that subscribe to a certain theory pertaining to that field is just one line of evidence that can show validity. Since 98% of practicing climate scientists and 99% of published, peer-reviewed papers on the subject over the last 20 years agree that human CO2 emissions are affecting the climate, this should give a lot of weight to the concept. Since the temperature is rising globally on average, 95% of glaciers are in retreat, the Arctic ice cap is disintegrating, and countless other fingerprints of enhanced greenhouse warming are happening all over the globe, this should lend even more weight. The fact that many prominent denier scientists like Willie Soon and others are on Exxon's payroll should clearly convey what motivates them to advocate for the fringe position that we can load our atmosphere with billions of tons of carbon and not expect anything bad to happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can't know anything with 100% certainty, but certain conclusions have more backing than others. Just look at the science sometime with an open mind and you'll see.
Thanks so much savvov! It's refreshing to hear an argument that at least makes infinitely more sense than the paid-for denialist and pro-nuclear-anti-renewable positions so prevalent here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough it occurs to me spamming every comment section in creation (well, evolution actually) with anti-scientific claptrap would be a most entertaining profession. If any of you guys has got a job for me, drop me a line.
Wait, are you talking about savvov's "comment" or mine?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 2 most pressing issues facing us at the moment are 1. Global warming 2. Population. Both problems will most definitely lead to catastrophic conditions if they are not addressed very soon. We have 5-10 years to make serious commitment to climate change. If we do not it will lead to city, state, provincial, even national bankruptcies, unbelievable droughts (the prairies could well become a permanent dust bowl) which will lead to food shortages and starvation, flooding of entire Pacific Island nations and coastal cities, part of the planet that will become uninhabitable due to temperature over 150°F, billions of climate refugees and inevitably wars. Solar and Wind are proven clean energy sources. Just look at photos of German commercial buildings, homes, farm houses - all have solar panels on the roof tops! One Pacific Island nation is now powered exclusively by solar! Americans who have installed panels are saving huge amounts on their electrical bills - many are even selling power to the energy companies. They have gained true independence! I therefore believe that one of the answers is to make it mandatory that solar panels be installed on all new buildings. Solar panels and batteries continued to become more efficient and more affordable. Some scientists have said that the entire planet could be powered by solar. It is very feasible to even have solar panels in orbit that beam energy down to the planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this