Is the Copenhagen conference going to be a success?

Selected Version - Version 5 (Current Version) : 08 Dec 2009 | 12:51 | booji

<< Older version | Newer version >>

All versions

Key

  • Text coloured Greenhas been added snce the previous version
  • Text marked red and striked-throughhas been deleted

Changes from Version 4 to Version 5

On the point: Costs of recession mean developed countries won't make financial commitments.

If the world can find trillions to bail out banks who caused the crisis then they can surely come up with the money to prevent an even bigger disaster. Once the costs of global warming begin to kick in the costs of the financial crisis will look like small change.  
 
change. 
 
The financial commitment does not need to be massive to start with as global warming is something we are going to have to tackle slowly. So much smaller amounts than went to the banks need to be invested but it will need to be invested year after year not in a one off block. This also means that the commitment could change depending on the economic climate in that year, in boom years more can go to combating climate change, when in a recession less would be spent on climate change. change. 
 
Money cant really be an object. It's something that has to be done sooner or later, but the later we do it, the more it'll end up costing us and the worse the irreversible damage will be. Phrasing it as solely an economic problem is probably the wrong approach. How do you balance the existance of countries and species and cultures against the cost of technology. We'll be losing a lot more than money if we do nothing.

The banking crisis and the recession have cost the developed world trillions of dollars. This has been used to bail out banks, increase spending and on mitigating social costs. All necessary. However this does mean there is very little money left to help prevent global warming. This is made worse by many Countries owing the international community through the IMF lots of money. They therefore have to focus on repaying debts. These countries have not been able to take care of there own internal crises let alone make significant contribution to a world problem such as climate change.

The leaders of the developed countries have been seeking excuses to defer actions, and the financial crisis/economic recession provides this excuse to shirk financial commitments. It is like the 'prisoner's dilemma' in game theory, all parties know that commitments from all will reach an optimal result; yet because of the lack of binding power, they all refrain from being the first one to commit. As the impact of financial problems is always more imminently felt than that of global warming leaders are hestitant to gamble their electoral support on something that will not realize in their terms of office. It is only when the domestic support for something to be done to combat global warming becomes strong enough, a voice that cannot be ignored, then the leaders would respond accordingly.

Yes, because...

 

No, because... Costs of recession mean developed countries won't make financial commitments.

If the world can find trillions to bail out banks who caused the crisis then they can surely come up with the money to prevent an even bigger disaster. Once the costs of global warming begin to kick in the costs of the financial crisis will look like small change.

The financial commitment does not need to be massive to start with as global warming is something we are going to have to tackle slowly. So much smaller amounts than went to the banks need to be invested but it will need to be invested year after year not in a one off block. This also means that the commitment could change depending on the economic climate in that year, in boom years more can go to combating climate change, when in a recession less would be spent on climate change.

Money cant really be an object. It's something that has to be done sooner or later, but the later we do it, the more it'll end up costing us and the worse the irreversible damage will be. Phrasing it as solely an economic problem is probably the wrong approach. How do you balance the existance of countries and species and cultures against the cost of technology. We'll be losing a lot more than money if we do nothing.

 

The banking crisis and the recession have cost the developed world trillions of dollars. This has been used to bail out banks, increase spending and on mitigating social costs. All necessary. However this does mean there is very little money left to help prevent global warming. This is made worse by many Countries owing the international community through the IMF lots of money. They therefore have to focus on repaying debts. These countries have not been able to take care of there own internal crises let alone make significant contribution to a world problem such as climate change.

The leaders of the developed countries have been seeking excuses to defer actions, and the financial crisis/economic recession provides this excuse to shirk financial commitments. It is like the 'prisoner's dilemma' in game theory, all parties know that commitments from all will reach an optimal result; yet because of the lack of binding power, they all refrain from being the first one to commit. As the impact of financial problems is always more imminently felt than that of global warming leaders are hestitant to gamble their electoral support on something that will not realize in their terms of office. It is only when the domestic support for something to be done to combat global warming becomes strong enough, a voice that cannot be ignored, then the leaders would respond accordingly.