↓
 

PLEA Network

Climate change information and resources for change

  • PLEA Network
  • Addiction to Growth
    • Steady State Economy
    • Universal Basic Income
    • The Law vs Politics
  • The Science
    • Impacts Observed & Projected
    • All Things Carbon and Emissions
    • BOM Updates
    • Antarctica
  • Mainstreaming our changing climate
  • Fairyland of 2 degrees
  • Population & Consumption
    • People Stress
    • Food & Water Issues
    • Equity & Social Justice
    • Ecosystem Stress
    • Security & Conflict
  • Communication
    • Resource News Sites
  • Global Action/Inaction
    • IPCC What is it?
    • Paris COP21 Wrap-up
  • Australian Response / Stats
    • Federal Government – checking the facts
  • The Mitigation Battle
    • Fossil Fuel Reduction
  • Adaptation & Building Resilience
    • Downsizing Plan B
    • City Basics for Change
  • Ballarat Community
    • Regional Sustainability Alliance Ballarat
    • Reports & Submissions
  • Brown Hill Community FireAware Network
    • FireAware Network – Neighbourhood clusters
    • FireAware Network – Understanding risk
    • FireAware Network – Be prepared
    • FireAware Network – Role of council and emergency services
    • FireAware Network – Resources
  • The Uncomfortable Corner
  • Archive Library
    • Site Topics Index
    • Links Page for Teachers
  • Countries fail again to decide timing of key IPCC climate science reports
Home→Tags Economy - Page 22 << 1 2 … 20 21 22 23 24 … 35 36 >>

Tag Archives: Economy

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts →
PLEA Network

31 July 2016, Scientific American, The Sticky Truth about Economic Growth and Climate Change. Why we need to talk about the costs of mitigation. That averting climate change will save us money should be a tautology, but for reasons including entrenched interests, it is not. The pre-cautionary principle alone would tell us that we do not want to learn what costs climate change will incur, so better to pay a small premium to avoid the risk at all. Instead, calculated estimates pin the cost of avoiding catastrophic effects from climate change at something like 1% of global GDP. So who will pay for it, and who loses from a more sustainable economy? In recent years, several studies have come out running cost-benefit analysis on a policy switch to a clean energy system. Yet, besides governmental ‘push’ factors, we should not forget market ‘pull’ factors. Even if there was less of a push by the government to clean up our air and water supply, as well as mitigate climate change, the coal industry is for example changing regardless thanks to cheap natural gas as well as self-inflicted wounds. While coal mine employment in the U.S. did drop 91,600 in 2011 to 74,900 in 2014, there are now more workers in the solar sector than in oil and gas. So overall, not counting the benefits of lowered air pollution and avoiding climate change, the overall job situation seems to be moving towards net positive. So, case closed? Not quite. Read More here

PLEA Network

28 July 2016, The guardian, World’s largest carbon producers face landmark human rights case. Filipino government body gives 47 ‘carbon majors’ 45 days to respond to allegations of human rights violations resulting from climate change. The world’s largest oil, coal, cement and mining companies have been given 45 days to respond to a complaint that their greenhouse gas emissions have violated the human rights of millions of people living in the Phillippines. In a potential landmark legal case, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHR), a constitutional body with the power to investigate human rights violations, has sent 47 “carbon majors” including Shell, BP, Chevron, BHP Billiton and Anglo American, a 60-page document accusing them of breaching people’s fundamental rights to “life, food, water, sanitation, adequate housing, and to self determination”. The move is the first step in what is expected to be an official investigation of the companies by the CHR, and the first of its kind in the world to be launched by a government body. The complaint argues that the 47 companies should be held accountable for the effects of their greenhouse gas emissions in the Philippines and demands that they explain how human rights violations resulting from climate change will be “eliminated, remedied and prevented”. It calls for an official investigation into the human rights implications of climate change and ocean acidification and whether the investor-owned “carbon majors” are in breach of their responsibilities. Read More here

PLEA Network

20 July 2016, The Guardian, Why is the World Bank backing coal power in Europe’s youngest country? In the early days of December 2015, as the Paris climate talks veered off course and off schedule, the US secretary of state John Kerry left his team of negotiators and flew to Kosovo to voice his support for a proposed US-built, World Bank-sponsored coal power station. Speaking alongside the prime minister, Isa Mustafa, Kerry told reporters at Pristina airport that the Kosovo e re (New Kosovo) plant would help the tiny, impoverished country do “its part to contribute to this global effort of nations who are committed to dealing with climate change” by replacing an extremely high-polluting cold war-era power plant. Kerry then returned to Paris and helpedland a deal intended to bring the fossil fuel era to an end. While many countries, including the US, continue to build coal plants at home, the fuel is increasingly a pariah in the world of development finance. Both the USand the World Bank have limited international finance for new coal power to exceptional circumstances – so rare that Kosovo’s is the only coal plant being considered for World Bank support anywhere on Earth. Despite this, Kosovan government officials are confident they will receive final approval from the World Bank when the project goes before its board, likely later this year. Strong advocacy is expected from the US delegation. Read More here

PLEA Network

29 June 2016, Institute for Policy Studies. Free Trade Agreements Have Exacerbated a Humanitarian Crisis in Central America. Proposals like the Alliance for Prosperity Plan and the Trans-Pacific Partnership will only accelerate a race to the bottom for families in the Northern triangle of Latin America, Manuel Perez-Rocha said at the AFL-CIO conference on U.S. trade policy. U.S. trade negotiators continue to claim that free trade agreements help to support security, but in reality, they exacerbate the root causes of instability in the Mesoamerican region, IPS’s Manuel Perez-Rocha said in a speech at the AFL-CIO conference on U.S. trade policy. “Real security encompasses economic, human, financial, and political security,” he said. Today the Northern triangle of Latin America is one of the most dangerous places in the world. In Mexico alone, there are more than 27,000 people reported missing on top of the 100,000 killed in the so-called war on drugs, Perez-Rocha said. He explained that the origins of this crisis are rooted in structural adjustment policies that the IMF and the World Bank imposed on Central America to pave the way for free trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and now the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). “Instead of bringing prosperity, [NAFTA] took away domestic protections from Mexico’s food production, leading to greater food insecurity and the widespread loss of our agricultural livelihoods,” he said. Read More here

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Tags

Agriculture animal response Antarctica Arctic Attribution Bioenergy Bushfire carbon capture coal Community consumption Deniers Drought Economy Emissions Extreme Events Fed Govt forest response gas geoengineering groundwater health insurance Legal Action Local Action Migration native forests New Technology nuclear oceans oil Renewables RET scheme State Govt subsidies trade agreements UNFCCC United Nations Waste Management water
©2025 - PLEA Network - Weaver Xtreme Theme
↑