Climate change

Chris from Kerikeri District

“ In Sir Nicholas Stern’s study, he concluded that unchecked climate change could lead to a 20% decline in GDP, an estimate that appears increasingly conservative as the science progresses.
The economic implications aren’t just about the direct costs of systems failing. We also need to consider the costs of creating the required alternative economic infrastructure. The costs are often put forward as a reason for delay. In fact, the opposite is the case, because Mother Nature doesn’t wait for us to get around to it, so the impacts keep marching on and therefore the response becomes more expensive . Again taking the example of climate change , the International Energy Agency (IEA) has concluded that very year of delay on climate change increase the cost of building the new energy infrastructure required because the necessary rate of reduction gets steeper and steeper , stranding capital assets. They estimate ‘every year’ of delay means we will pay and extra $500 billion…….
Other studies have put a number on the total value of all ecosystem services to the economy. The most comprehensive attempt to do so was published in Nature in 1997 and has been cited thousands of times subsequently . Based upon a thorough literature review and compilation, the team of scientists and economists who produced the report estimated that the totals value of ecosystem services was between $16 trillion and $54 trillion annually, with an average of $33 trillion. They noted the uncertainties but took a conservative approach and stressed that, “ this must be considered a minimum estimate.” Versus this figure, they noted that total global GNP in 1997 was around half that at $18 trillion…..What we get from nature is fundamental to our economy , and with out these inputs we would in fact produce nothing. Yet most political debates are still framed in the context of environmental protection being “ nice to have” if we can afford it.


Taken from “ The Great Disruption “ by Paul Gildings.