December 13, 2007
Regulation, Aid Not Solution to Climate Change – Report
A new report* released Monday December 3rd, produced by 41 institutes from around the world, concludes:
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the coming two decades is not a cost-effective way to address climate change.
Deaths from climate related natural disasters have fallen dramatically since the 1920s, as a result of economic growth and technological development. With continued economic growth, the death rate is likely to continue to fall regardless of climate change. (The number of reported natural disasters has increased continuously since 1900 for various reasons, including population growth and improvements in communication; climate change is most likely not one of them.)
There is no evidence that climate change has caused an increase in disease. If the main causes of diseases such as diarrhoea and malaria are properly addressed, climate change will not increase their incidence.
Agricultural production has outpaced population growth in the past 50 years. With continued technological improvements, this trend will continue to 2100, even if the global mean temperature rises by 3°C.
Water scarcity is a problem in many countries, but with better management and modern technologies, more water can made be available to all.
Millions of people in poor countries currently die unnecessarily due to a lack of wealth and technology. These problems have generally been exacerbated – not alleviated – by foreign aid, which has supported unaccountable governments that have oppressed their citizens, denying them the ability to improve their lot.
Global restrictions on greenhouse gases would undermine the capacity of people in poor countries to address the problems they face today as well as in the future by retarding economic growth and general economic development.
Instead of pushing emissions restrictions and failed ‘aid’ policies, governments should focus on reducing barriers to economic growth and adaptation – e.g. removing trade barriers and decentralising management of water and land.
*The Civil Society Report on Climate Change, published by the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change (www.csccc.info). Peter Holle, President of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, is a member of the CSCCC.
For more information, including a copy of the report or interviews with authors and experts, email newideas@fcpp.org or call 204.977.5049
NOTES
The Civil Society Report on Climate Change comprises:
Summary and Policy Recommendations
By the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change
"Human Ecology and Human Behavior: Climate change and health in perspective"
By Paul Reiter
"Death and Death Rates due to Extreme Weather Events: Global & U.S. Trends, 1900-2006"
By Indur M. Goklany
"Weathering Global Warming in Agriculture and Forestry: It can be done with free markets"
By Douglas Southgate and Brent Sohngen
"The Political Economy of Global Warming, Rent Seeking and Freedom"
By Wolfgang Kasper
About the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change
The Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change seeks to educate the public about the science and economics of climate change in an impartial manner. It was established as a response to the many biased and alarmist claims about human-induced climate change, which are being used to justify calls for intervention and regulation.
The Coalition comprises over forty independent civil society organisations who share a commitment to improving public understanding about a range of public policy issues. All are non-profit organizations that are independent of political parties and government.
A list of members is available here
QUOTES
Commenting on the release of the report, Barun Mitra of India’s Liberty Institute, one of the 41 organisations who published the report, said:
“The imposition of global limits on greenhouse gas emissions would be immoral, since it would result in today's poor paying for the benefit of tomorrow's rich."
Meanwhile, Kendra Okonski, Environment Programme Director of International Policy Network, said:
“Kyoto 2 is the wrong solution. Such a treaty would harm billions of poor people: it would make energy and energy-dependent technologies, such as clean water, more expensive, and would perpetuate poverty.”
FIGURES
The following figures are supplementary to the report. Data for all figures are available – email: environment@policynetwork.net
Source CRED (www.em-dat.org)
Sources: CRED (www.em-dat.org) and World Bank (World Development Indicators)
Related Items:
View CSCC Report in PDF Format
The Frontier Centre for Public Policy
is an independent public policy think tank whose mission is "to broaden the debate on our future through public policy research and education and to explore positive changes within our public institutions that support economic growth and opportunity."
Feedback:
- RE:
Climate Change
— December 17, 2007
In reading in one of your articles that noted the global-warming-warning are creating their own economy, I wondered "Has any reporter ever attempted to "follow the money?" "
It would be interesting to know who would get rich if certain "fixes" were put in place. For example, I hear politicians tell prairie farmers they will make money selling "carbon credits", and while I wonder how that is proposed to work some articles add there will be/is a special carbon credit exchange (is that sort of like a stock exchange) where the "credits" would be sold/traded, and later I read things like "Al Gore has ownership as an investor/founder of the exchange he's promoting". Will Al Gore make millions off the exchange he's promoting?Will he make more than the farmers ? How will the money get from the consumer to the manufacturing-industy to the farmer, and how much will the middle industries , like the "exchange owners" take? If governments are financially penalized for failing to meet quotas, how much of that money would go to the money grabber's in the middle, and how much will go back to consumers or farmers?
I'd be very interested in seeing someone do an article that would "follow the money", to put a new but relevant perspective on the debate. -Email from Saskatchewan
