Garnaut says (.pdf):
A revolution in humanity’s use of fossil fuel-based energy would be necessary sooner or later to sustain and to extend modern standards of living. It will be required sooner if we are to hold the risks of climate change to acceptable levels.
But he doesn’t seem very optimistic about our chances of achieving this revolution in the time required to “hold the risks of climate change to acceptable levels,” noting the
awful reality that each country has a narrow national interest in doing as little as it can, whatever others do, so long as its own action does not diminish the mitigation action that others actually take.
And don’t believe anyone who says, “Reducing our emissions will cost x-ty billion dollars [and therefore we shouldn't do it].”
The case for action is not made simply by comparing the cost of unmitigated climate change with the cost of mitigation. The relevant comparator is the reduction in the cost of climate change that is achieved as a result of the mitigation action.
Mitigate now, and avoid some costs that are potentially unpayable in quite catastropic ways later.
Comments Off
Entries (RSS)