ten fold and then some
April 24th 2008 01:13
A new report has been released saying that spending on renewable energy research needs to go up ten-fold if we are going to be able to cope with climate change, this would still only put the spending on par with spending on the US Apollo space program project.
It's actually a pretty interesting piece, stating we should be preparing for the worst case scenarios of Climate Change and if that doesn't eventuate we have no downside because we desperately need to spend money on developing renewables and other clean technologies anyhow.
The guy who wrote the report is Nick Mabey who used to be part of the Prime ministers Strategy group (in the UK) the only thing I don't like is that he talks Nuclear, I would prefer to see the investment go into renewables, just in case you hadn't guessed that already.
Here is the LINK
and an extract
Hey I don't have $50bill lying around but I would take this argument further, his best point is, WE HAVE NO DOWNSIDE in investing in these areas, whether its about Cl
imate Change or not, the world needs these technologies, so lets not count the cost let's invest as much as we can.
I would like to state here that I do not consider biofuels that take food out of the food chain renewable energy.
cheers
Louie
It's actually a pretty interesting piece, stating we should be preparing for the worst case scenarios of Climate Change and if that doesn't eventuate we have no downside because we desperately need to spend money on developing renewables and other clean technologies anyhow.
The guy who wrote the report is Nick Mabey who used to be part of the Prime ministers Strategy group (in the UK) the only thing I don't like is that he talks Nuclear, I would prefer to see the investment go into renewables, just in case you hadn't guessed that already.
Here is the LINK
and an extract
"We're preparing for a car bomb, not for 9/11," said Nick Mabey, author of the report which comes after Lord Stern, who compiled an economic assessment of climate change for the Government, said last week that he had underestimated the possible economic consequences.
Mr Mabey, a former senior member of the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit who is now chief executive of the environmental group E3G, said leading economies should be preparing for what would happen if climate change turned out to be running at the top of the temperature range scientists are predicting.
He said the Apollo programme cost the United States £10bn a year (at 2002 prices), nearly 10 times more than the current spending on energy research.
advertisement
The equivalent scaling-up of research and development needed to be undertaken by every major country to prepare for the eventuality that the climate would reach a "tipping point" where warming and sea level rise began to accelerate, he said.
If the change did not happen so fast, and climate change was more benign than the worst-case scenario, the research would not be wasted as technological advances in nuclear power, biofuels, carbon capture and storage and renewables were urgently needed anyway, he added.
Mr Mabey, a former senior member of the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit who is now chief executive of the environmental group E3G, said leading economies should be preparing for what would happen if climate change turned out to be running at the top of the temperature range scientists are predicting.
He said the Apollo programme cost the United States £10bn a year (at 2002 prices), nearly 10 times more than the current spending on energy research.
advertisement
The equivalent scaling-up of research and development needed to be undertaken by every major country to prepare for the eventuality that the climate would reach a "tipping point" where warming and sea level rise began to accelerate, he said.
If the change did not happen so fast, and climate change was more benign than the worst-case scenario, the research would not be wasted as technological advances in nuclear power, biofuels, carbon capture and storage and renewables were urgently needed anyway, he added.
Hey I don't have $50bill lying around but I would take this argument further, his best point is, WE HAVE NO DOWNSIDE in investing in these areas, whether its about Cl
I would like to state here that I do not consider biofuels that take food out of the food chain renewable energy.
cheers
Louie
| 86 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Krystal
feelings
Comment by Louie
Climate Red
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips
Comment by Fobzy
Fobz
Comment by Louie
Climate Red
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips