#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Options

# World Energy Outlook 2010 (WEO2010)

I started a page containing some of the executive summary of this plan for action:

World Energy Outlook 2010

• The failure at Copenhagen cost us at least \$1 trillion if we want to keep CO2 below 450 ppm.

(And how much more, I wonder, if we don't. I'm not sure they do any analysis of the price of not combating global warming!)

• "The modest nature of the pledges to cut greenhouse-gas emissions under the Copenhagen Accord has undoubtedly made it less likely that the 2 °C goal will actually be achieved. Reaching that goal would require a phenomenal policy push by governments around the world. An indicator of just how big an effort is needed is the rate of decline in carbon intensity - the amount of CO2, emitted per dollar of GOP - required in the 450 Scenario. Intensity would have to fall in 2008-2020 at twice the rate of 1990-2008; between 2020 and 2035, the rate would have to be almost four times faster. The technology that exists today could enable such a change, but such a rate of technological transformation would be unprecedented."

• Options
1.
edited December 2010

(And how much more, I wonder, if we don't. I'm not sure they do any analysis of the price of not combating global warming!)

According to the 4 year old UK "Stern review" in section "It would cost too much to tackle climate change" on this page

Not tackling climate change has a price too. The recent Stern report examines the economic impact of climate change. It estimates that not taking action could cost from five to 20 percent of global GDP (gross domestic product) every year, now and forever. In comparison, reducing emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change could cost around one per cent of global GDP each year.

This report has been attacked by some, particularly business groups, but as ever it's unclear whether they've got valid points or whether dislike of the conclusions is motivating trying to pick away at the report.

Comment Source:> (And how much more, I wonder, if we don't. I'm not sure they do any analysis of the price of not combating global warming!) According to the 4 year old UK "Stern review" in section "It would cost too much to tackle climate change" on [this page](http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Environmentandgreenerliving/Thewiderenvironment/Climatechange/DG_072959) > Not tackling climate change has a price too. The recent Stern report examines the economic impact of climate change. It estimates that not taking action could cost from five to 20 percent of global GDP (gross domestic product) every year, now and forever. In comparison, reducing emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change could cost around one per cent of global GDP each year. This report has been attacked by some, particularly business groups, but as ever it's unclear whether they've got valid points or whether dislike of the conclusions is motivating trying to pick away at the report. This is [wikipedia's page on the Stern review](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review).