Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Taking action
With such clear evidence that climate change and global environmental degradation is oc-
curring and is going to get worse, why has so very little action been taken? The first excuse
used by politicians is that there is scientific uncertainty, which means it is not possible to
act. In the face of scientific uncertainty, various philosophies for decision-making have
arisen. Each has flaws. The precautionary principle says that action should be taken against
worst-case scenarios, 'just in case'. This is problematic as it does not take into account that
acting, as well as not acting, may yield unacceptable consequences. Moreover, the precau-
tionary principle as outlined in both Agenda 21 and post-Rio discussion only looks at 'cost-
effective measures' when it comes to assessing uncertainty. In effect, this means any risk
that is not fully quantifiable due to uncertainty can be ignored. So politically the precau-
tionary principle has been reduced to a type of cost-benefit analysis.
Cost-benefit analyses attempt to take into account the full cost of a risk by totalling the sum
impacts of different actions or non-actions. But there are serious problems in accounting
for all possible costs and giving them a numerical value. Debates arise about whether the
cost to our offspring should count for less than the costs to today's generation (known as
'discounting the future'), and about the (perhaps variable) value of human life. Can we
morally argue that a life of an Indian is worth less than that of an American? Economists'
models do make this assumption. Cost-benefit analysis and mainstream economics also fail
to account for natural capital and ecosystem services. Natural capital is the stock of natural
ecosystems that yields a flow of valuable ecosystem goods or services into the future. For
example, a stock of trees or fish provides a flow of new trees or fish, a flow that can be in-
definitely sustainable. While ecosystem services are services provided for nature that are
essential for human life, they are split into four main categories: provisioning , such as the
production of food and water; regulating , such as the control of climate and disease; sup-
porting , such as nutrient cycles and crop pollination; and cultural , such as spiritual and re-
creational benefits. It is clear that many of these ecosystem services are of huge economic
value. Another economic approach has been the calculation of the social cost of carbon
(SCC). SCC is the calculation of the societal cost of emitting an additional tonne of GHGs
into the atmosphere. However, the SCC is heavily influenced by what is defined as climate
change damage, how risk averse society should be, and how much future impacts can dis-
counted due to increased wealth. Published estimates of the SCC range from $6 to $445 per
tonne of carbon dioxide. However, a recent paper by van den Bergh and Botzen in Nature
Climate Change suggests the lower limit should be $125 per tonne of carbon dioxide.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search