*********************************************** 
CLIMATE CHANGE NEWS TODAY 
Climate Change to Spark Economic Depression
*********************************************** 
Climate Ark a project of Ecological Internet, Inc. 

http://www.climateark.org/ -- Climate Ark Climate Change Portal 
  http://www.climateark.org/blog/ -- Climate Change Blog 
    http://www.climateark.org/news/ -- Climate Change Newsfeed  

October 29, 2006 
OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY by Dr. Glen Barry, Climate Ark  
 
Given overwhelming and robust evidence (Item #1 below), the 
scientific debate on global warming is now closed and it is time 
for action (#2) which will require going beyond science to 
policy and advocacy formulation. A major new report by chief 
British government (#3-6) and former World Bank chief economist 
Nicholas Stern finds that the benefits of determined worldwide 
steps to tackle climate change far outweigh the costs, and that 
failure to make these investments will lead to "economic 
upheaval on the scale of the 1930s Depression", costing "more 
than both world wars" while rendering "swathes of the planet 
uninhabitable" and turning "200 million people into refugees". 
This is not alarmist doomsdayism - it is the best policy 
predictions based upon the current science. There are many ways 
to know climate change, science being important but just one of 
them. The report is the best policy document to date regarding 
likely apocalyptic social and economic outcomes of doing nothing 
to address the global ecological crises of which climate change 
is part and paramount.

"The chance to keep greenhouse gases at a level which scientists 
say should avoid the worst effects of climate change 'is already 
almost out of reach... the benefits of strong, early action 
considerably outweigh the costs'." The report estimates 
stabilizing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cost about 
one per cent of annual global output by 2050. But if the world 
does nothing, it could cut global consumption per person by 
between five and 20 per cent. He suggested rich nations take 
responsibility for emissions cuts of 60-80 per cent from 1990 
levels by 2050. Further, a global carbon price was needed, 
affixing a clear cost to pollution, and this could be created 
through tax (#7) [EI's carbon tax plan at 
http://www.climateark.org/lincoln_plan/ ], trading or 
regulation. And with only perhaps a decade to act with force, it 
is imperative that a Kyoto successor agreement is negotiated as 
early as next year.

Comments:  
http://www.climateark.org/blog/2006/10/climate_change_to_spark_e
conom.asp

******************************* 
  
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE: 
ITEM #1 
Title:  UN sees 'far more robust' global warming evidence 
Source:  Copyright 2006, Reuters 
Date:  October 29, 2006
Byline:  Laura MacInnis

Scientific evidence that human activity is heating the Earth has 
become "far more robust" in the last five years, the head of the 
United Nations climate change panel said.

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (IPCC), said an increase of research on global 
warming had added weight to the group's upcoming report, which 
is considered a mainstay for environmental policy-making.

"Some of the uncertainties that we had in the scientific 
evidence will be reduced. Our evidence will be far more robust," 
Pachauri told Reuters in a telephone interview.

In its last assessment in 2001, the IPCC said there was "new and 
stronger evidence" that gases linked to human activities, mainly 
from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, 
were the main cause of global warming.

Its next report, the first chapter of which will be launched in 
Paris on Feb. 2, will group research by about 2,000 scientists 
on the drivers of climate change and its impacts on weather, 
disease, ecology and water supply.

Marked strengthening in the IPCC conclusions might pressure the 
United States -- which pulled out of the emissions-cutting U.N. 
Kyoto Protocol in 2001 -- to toughen its policies.

President George W. Bush aims to brake the growth of emissions, 
which were at about 16 percent above 1990 levels in 2004. The 
White House says it will seek to halt or reverse the rise "as 
the science justifies".

James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on 
Environmental Quality, said he did not expect the new IPCC 
report to make a big splash.

Half the findings come from U.S.-funded science programmes and 
have been factored into policy-making, Connaughton told Reuters 
during a U.S.-European Union meeting in Helsinki.

Still, Pachauri said the report could add momentum to what he 
called "very encouraging" policy shifts in California and other 
states, and amongst the U.S. corporate community.

Public interest in climate change rose after Hurricane Katrina 
devastated New Orleans last year, and after the release of 
Hollywood films such as "The Day After Tomorrow" and Al Gore's 
"An Inconvenient Truth".

"There is an unprecedented level of awareness of climate change 
and interest in the subject, and when the report comes out I 
expect there to be a lot of attention paid to it," Pachauri 
said. "Presumably that will impact the political behaviour of 
people across the world." (Additional reporting by Alister Doyle 
in Helsinki)


ITEM #2
British government says scientific debate on global warming 'now 
closed,' action needed 
Source:  Copyright 2006, Associated Press 
Date:  October 29, 2006

Global warming is now a reality and the debate about its 
existence is over, Britain's environment minister said Sunday, 
before the release of a report on the economic cost of climate 
change.

Environment Secretary David Miliband said international action 
was needed to curb the emission of greenhouse gases that 
scientists say are warming the planet.

"I think that the scientific debate has now closed on global 
warming, and the popular debate is closing as well," Miliband 
told Sky News television.

"The scientific consensus is that over the last 150 years we've 
changed the climate in fundamental ways, above all by the amount 
of carbon that we've pumped into the atmosphere from burning 
coal for energy, and from transport.

"There isn't really a debate, there's a reality of global 
warming," he added.

A report on climate change commissioned by Treasury chief Gordon 
Brown is due to be released Monday. The 700-page report, 
compiled by senior government economist Sir Nicholas Stern, is 
expected to say global warming could cost world economies 
trillions of pounds (dollars, euros) and trigger a global 
recession, The Observer newspaper reported Sunday.

The newspaper said the report will say the world needs to spend 
one per cent of global gross domestic product — which it 
calculated as 184 billion pounds (US$349 billion, €274 billion) 
— to deal with climate change. Otherwise, the bill would reach 
into the trillions.

The report will also recommend that a successor to the Kyoto 
climate change accord should be signed next year rather than 
waiting for 2010 or 2011 because of the urgency of the problem, 
the Observer said.

The report is expected to increase pressure on the 
administration of U.S. President George W. Bush — which never 
approved the Kyoto accord — to step up its efforts to fight 
global warming.

Miliband said action by the United States was key to solving the 
problem.

"It's vital that the major emitters like the United States and 
the growing economies like China and India are also part of the 
solution," he said.

A newspaper reported Sunday that the British government was 
considering new "green taxes" to help halt climate change.

The Mail on Sunday said it had obtained a letter written by 
Miliband to treasurer Gordon Brown, which called for higher 
taxes on cheap airline flights, fuel and high-emission vehicles.

Miliband said the government was discussing a range of options.

"There's been a leak of a document and obviously there are 
discussions going on inside government," he said. "I'm not going 
to get drawn into what should be a discussion going on inside 
government."


ITEM #3
Report warns climate may spark depression 
Source:  Copyright 2006, Reuters 
Date:  October 29, 2006

Ignoring climate change could lead to economic upheaval on the 
scale of the 1930s Depression, underlining the need for urgent 
action to combat global warming, a British report on the costs 
of climate change says.

The report by chief British government economist Nicholas Stern, 
a 27-page summary of which was obtained by Reuters, says the 
benefits of determined worldwide steps to tackle climate change 
would greatly outweigh the costs.

The 700-page report, to be published tomorrow, said that no 
matter what we do now the chance to keep greenhouse gases at a 
level which scientists say should avoid the worst effects of 
climate change "is already almost out of reach".

It said the world does not have to choose between tackling 
climate change and economic growth, contradicting US President 
George W Bush who pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol against 
global warming in part because he said it would cost jobs.

"The evidence gathered by the review leads to a simple 
conclusion: the benefits of strong, early action considerably 
outweigh the costs," said the report, prepared for British Prime 
Minister Tony Blair and finance minister Gordon Brown.

"Our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of 
major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this 
century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated 
with the great wars and the economic depression of the first 
half of the 20th century," it said.

It precedes UN climate talks, starting in Nairobi on November 6, 
focusing on finding a successor to Kyoto which ends in 2012.

Blair is pushing for a post-Kyoto framework that would include 
the United States - the world's biggest producer of greenhouse 
gases that cause climate change - as well as major developing 
countries such as China and India.

Kyoto obliges 35 rich nations to cut emissions of greenhouse 
gases - which come mainly from burning fossil fuels in power 
plants, factories and cars - by some 5 per cent from 1990 levels 
by 2008-12. Many Kyoto nations are above target.

Stern said that, on current trends, average global temperatures 
will rise by 2-3 degrees centigrade within the next 50 years or 
so, compared with temperatures in 1750-1850.

If emissions continue to grow, the earth could warm by several 
more degrees, with severe consequences that would hit poor 
countries most, the former World Bank chief economist said.

Melting glaciers would initially increase flood risk and then 
reduce water supplies, eventually threatening one-sixth of the 
world's population, mainly in the Indian sub-continent, parts of 
China and the South American Andes, he said.

Declining crop yields, especially in Africa, could leave 
hundreds of millions unable to produce or buy enough food, he 
said. Rising sea levels could result in tens to hundreds of 
millions more people flooded each year.

The report estimates stabilising greenhouse gases in the 
atmosphere will cost about one per cent of annual global output 
by 2050. But if the world does nothing, it could cut global 
consumption per person by between five and 20 per cent.

Stern called for a coordinated international approach to combat 
climate change, saying the effort must be shared fairly by rich 
and poor. He suggested rich nations take responsibility for 
emissions cuts of 60-80 per cent from 1990 levels by 2050.

Countering global warming would bring new opportunities to 
industry, he said, estimating the market for low-carbon energy 
products could be worth at least $US500 billion ($655.78 
billion) a year by 2050.

He advocated a doubling of worldwide public spending on research 
and development into low-carbon technologies and a sharp 
increase in incentives to encourage people to use them.

Stern said a global carbon price was needed, affixing a clear 
cost to pollution, and this could be created through tax, 
trading or regulation.


ITEM #4
Title: Ten years to save the planet 
Source:  Copyright 2006, Observer 
Date:  October 29, 2006

The Stern Report will tomorrow reveal that if governments do 
nothing, climate change will cost more than both world wars and 
render swathes of the planet uninhabitable. Can the world find 
the will to act? Gaby Hinsliff reports 


It is almost Halloween, and Rachel from San Francisco is 
worrying about pumpkins. She saved last year's decorations to 
use again, and recycled rather than bought new cards to send: 
there will be no waste once the pumpkins are carved, with the 
family eating the seeds, flesh pureed for the cats and remains 
composted.

Nonetheless, she feels guilty that the pumpkin purchase 'might 
be contentious for some' - and so, she records on her blog, she 
has carved them with green slogans to try to 'mitigate the 
buying'.

In an age in which even Britons spend £130 million on ghoulish 
Halloween fripperies, Rachel may seem to be swimming against the 
tide. In fact, she is part of a new and growing movement.

She belongs to Compact, an American group dedicated to avoiding 
buying unnecessary products; shopping locally, rather than 
buying goods shipped thousands of miles; and combating the 
'negative global, environment and socio-economic impacts of US 
consumer culture'. It models itself on the Founding Fathers' 
pledge of piety as they stepped ashore from the Mayflower, not 
the American Dream of shopping until you drop.

Similar beliefs are echoed in Britain by the 'voluntary 
simplicity' movement - a mix of greens, anti-corporate activists 
and downshifting professionals who either resist shopping or at 
least shop more thoughtfully. Their frugality might be familiar 
to pensioners raised during wartime but, for the new generation 
of thrifters, it is about principles, not economic necessity. 
They can afford the gas-guzzling luxuries of modern life: they 
just don't want them, now that they recognise their 
environmental cost. The woman refusing yet another plastic 
supermarket carrier bag or the businessman taking the Eurostar 
rather than flying to Paris are, in a smaller way, adopting 
voluntary simplicity.

But after tomorrow, many may be asking: what is the point? The 
economist Sir Nicholas Stern's report on climate change will 
paint an apocalyptic picture over 700 pages of where global 
warming could lead, arguing that, unless we act, it will cost 
more than two world wars and the Great Depression of the 
Thirties and render swaths of the planet uninhabitable. Even if 
the world stopped all pollution tomorrow, the slow-growing 
effects of carbon already pumped into the atmosphere would mean 
continued climate change for another 30 years - with sea levels 
rising for a century.

Nor, he will say, is unilateral action by one country enough: if 
Britain closed all its power stations tomorrow, within 13 months 
China would fill the gap left in global emissions. Given that 
the effects will be felt around the world - from the collapse of 
the Amazonian rainforest to the melting of Greenland's ice sheet 
and changes in the Indian monsoon - the response must be global, 
too.

Amid such doomsday warnings, Britons could easily conclude that 
trading in the 4x4 or remembering to turn off the lights is 
merely whistling in the wind. Intriguingly, when the 
Chancellor's right-hand man Ed Balls, Chief Economic Secretary 
at the Treasury, was asked at a recent public meeting what he 
personally did to combat global warming, he retorted that the 
problem was too big for individuals and international action was 
essential.

But given Stern's verdict that preventing climate change will 
cost 1 per cent of global GDP - about £184 billion a year - and 
that it must be done in the next 10 to 15 years, the question 
is: where will the money come from? Green groups support people 
acting individually to do what they can. But the answers will 
not all come from everyone becoming an armchair 
environmentalist.

One of the costs is likely to be met by green taxes, an issue 
that will be a major part of the report. The Liberal Democrats 
have dumped their tax-the-rich strategy in favour of a raft of 
green taxes: Tory frontbenchers argue that green taxes should at 
least rise as a share of overall taxation. Now Labour is joining 
the argument.

Just as the Treasury commissioned a healthcare spending review, 
under Derek Wanless, to help soften the nation up for tax rises 
to fund the NHS, could Stern pave the way for a little fiscal 
punishment now to prevent a future recession? Brown has 
certainly told green NGOs that he regards their cause as the 
next Make Poverty History, to which he committed significant 
government spending.

Either way, the challenge for government is to convince 
individuals that the problem is urgent, but without making them 
feel it is so daunting that action is pointless.

'This will be a useful reminder that we should do more at home, 
but actually the big battle on climate change is international,' 
says a senior Whitehall source who has seen the report. 'We're 
not dismissing the need to do things, such as introduce a 
climate change bill, but it's not the whole answer.'

So what are the answers, and how will our lives change as a 
result?

Gerry Acher has a passion for speed. The businessman, recently 
made chairman of the Royal Society for the Arts, lives a 
comfortable life in commuter-belt Surrey: his indulgence is 
cars, and he has been eagerly awaiting the sporty Mini Cooper S 
he recently ordered.

That was until he began spearheading Carbondaq, a project that 
aims to get the RSA's 26,000 fellows to reduce their emissions 
of carbon dioxide. After discovering that his own projected 
carbon emissions next year were 25 tonnes - nearly three times 
the national average - he cancelled the car for a slower model 
with lower emissions, and is now preparing to ration his foreign 
holidays. 'I thought, if I commit myself to driving at the speed 
limit [which reduces emissions], why am I getting a Mini Cooper 
Sport?' he says, wistfully.

Acher's decisions matter because Carbondaq is essentially a dry 
run to see whether others could be persuaded into green 
altruism: it is designed to test whether so-called personal 
carbon allowances, advocated by the Environment Secretary, David 
Miliband, would work.

Under the scheme, all adults get a free annual 'carbon ration', 
stored on a swipecard: every time they consume something that 
contributes to global warming - buying petrol, or booking a 
flight - an equivalent amount of carbon is deducted. Once the 
credits are finished, people either pay for extra credits or 
forego a gas-guzzling activity.

'In my own mind, there is no doubt that [personal carbon 
allowances] will come,' says Acher. 'This will help us 
understand people's behaviour, what are going to be the 
difficult areas.' One of the first to sign up was Miliband 
himself: if it works, personal carbon allocation could transform 
the way we shop and - above all - travel.

Cheap short-haul flights are at the top of the green target 
list. Leo Murray of Plane Stupid, a direct action group, says 
aviation emissions are the obvious target because they doubled 
between 1990 and 2000, while emissions from other sectors such 
as industry fell. He dismisses carbon offsetting - paying 
penance for flights by contributing towards eco-friendly 
projects such as tree-planting. Plane Stupid just wants 
travellers to take the train to Paris or Newcastle.

But Murray admits that, for as long as a peak rail ticket in 
Britain costs five times as much as a cheap domestic flight, 
most consumers will fly, meaning that relying on individual 
altruism will fail.

'The government is peddling a line about how we are supposed to 
make individual choices, but the choices don't make sense,' he 
says. 'It's often quicker and cheaper to fly to Edinburgh than 
get the train, but the reason that's true is because the 
government continues to subsidise the airline industry.' With no 
tax on aviation fuel and no VAT on plane tickets - both of which 
would have to be agreed across the EU - the aviation industry 
benefits from an uneven playing field, he argues. As Stern 
argues, individuals will get only so far without government 
action.

The Tory front bench is making similar arguments. Shadow 
ministers are seriously discussing opposing the expansion of 
Stansted, because it is the hub for the no-frills airlines whose 
expansion, they argue, should not be encouraged. Conveniently, a 
number of marginal seats that the Tories need to win lie under 
the projected new flightpath.

But the political case for restricting car use is trickier. 
Ministers have fought shy of pricing motorists off the road ever 
since the fuel protests, but local government is bolder: last 
week, Richmond council announced that parking permits for gas-
guzzling cars would rise to a punitive £300: the Mayor of 
London, Ken Livingstone, has floated plans to raise the 
congestion charge for driving into central London from £8 to £25 
for 4x4s. Whitehall is watching closely.

Faced with such costs, it is perhaps unsurprising that up to 
11,000 Britons have now abandoned car ownership in favour of car 
clubs. Owners pay a set amount to have access when needed to a 
pool car parked near their homes, for which they pay an hourly 
charge, like a hire car.

Philip Igoe, co-founder of the charity CarPlus, which helps set 
up car clubs, says they work because they let drivers save 
money: 'I would love to say that [car clubbers] are 
environmentally motivated, but the reality is that people will 
be green only when it eases the pressure on their pocket. People 
will reduce the mileage because the costs become transparent. If 
you just want a newspaper, [car owners] will jump in the car: if 
that's going to cost you each trip, you are going to walk or go 
on the bike.'

In other words, car owners remember how much driving costs them 
only once a year, when they pay their car tax or insurance: car 
clubbers, shelling out each time they drive, typically reduce 
their mileage by up to 80 per cent.

The Department for Transport is now considering a bid from 
CarPlus for £12 million to expand car clubs nationwide - less 
than a tenth of the money being spent on widening the M1 - for 
which Carplus estimates that, by 2015 it could have enrolled 5 
per cent of the population.

Nonetheless Igoe admits that most motorists will always want 
their own wheels; and, while cleaner electric-petrol hybrid cars 
are increasingly popular, one seminar organised by Stern 
anxiously debated the 'Jeremy Clarkson factor' - would Top Gear 
viewers ever choose a green car over a faster one?

Put simply, there is only so far Britons will go. While a recent 
Department for Transport survey found that 70 per cent of adults 
think air travel harms the environment, that did not stop 49 per 
cent flying at least once in the past year. We know now what our 
lifestyles do to the planet, but will we change them?

Recent research from retail analysts Mintel suggests that, at 
least when it comes to shopping, we have already changed: 
Britons will spend more than £2 billion on ethical foods such as 
fairtrade coffee or organic vegetables this year, up nearly two 
thirds since 2002.

Critics, however, argue that green consumerism is essentially 
for the middle classes - who can afford a £200 jacket from Edun, 
the ethical clothing line run by Bono's wife, Ali Hewson - not 
the masses. Yet, as Stern will explain, the biggest victims of 
climate change will be the world's poorest.

Africa will suffer temperature increases double the global 
average, according to British forecasters the Hadley Centre. The 
countries already suffering frequent extremes of temperature are 
often the most poorly defended against them.

In an analysis for the Tories' policy commission on green 
issues, environmental scientist Professor Mike Hulme shows how 
the floods that ravaged central Europe in 2002 caused more than 
15 billion euros of damage, but killed fewer than 100 people. 
Similar flooding in Mozambique in 2002 did far less financial 
damage - with less valuable property to wreck - but killed more 
than 700.

And it is not only freak weather. A temperature rise of two 
degrees would drastically shrink the land available in Uganda 
for growing coffee, and cut farmers' incomes in India by 9 per 
cent, as crops failed.

And even the West might struggle financially. Hurricane Katrina 
- which led to the flooding of New Orleans - is likely to be the 
single most expensive insured event in history, costing up to 
£25 billion, according to evidence from insurers AXA submitted 
to Stern.

There are other costs, too. Margaret Beckett, the Foreign 
Secretary, warned last week that competition for water supplies 
and fertile land could lead to war as people are forced into 
mass migrations: Oxfam's submission to Stern includes a detailed 
study of the Turkana tribe of northwestern Kenya. Their 
traditional nomadic life has been threatened by extended 
droughts, while raids on their herds by drought-stricken 
neighbours have heightened tribal tensions just as wars in Sudan 
and Uganda have flooded the region with guns, making the clashes 
more violent and likely to escalate.

Food shortages in rural areas can also drive women into the 
cities, where they fall into prostitution, helping to spread 
HIV; Christian Aid estimates that, by the end of the next 
century, a staggering 182 million Africans will have died from 
the effects of climate change.

Yet the West, according to the New Economics Foundation, spends 
nearly twice as much subsidising fossil fuel industries as it 
does helping Africa adapt to climate change, for instance by 
growing drought-resistant crops.

But the major dilemmas are posed not by the poorest countries, 
but by emerging powerhouses such as China and India, struggling 
to balance their need for rapid economic growth with the 
devastating effects of climate change on traditional farming.

The Indian state of Orissa, fast emerging as a centre for new 
power stations, will alone shortly produce 3 per cent of the 
world's emissions, say local environmentalists, but when the 
steel plants pay labourers ten times what they earned farming, 
is it ethical to stop them?

Similarly car ownership in China, once almost unheard of, has 
risen by a third in the past two years and the tendency to buy 
cheap, badly maintained second-hand cars may mean they pump out 
more fumes than Western ones.

When even the non-shopping movement in Britain and America has 
become an industry itself, it seems unrealistic to expect 
emerging societies to abstain.

Instead, Tony Blair is pinning his faith on showing that Britain 
has reduced greenhouse gas emissions while still enjoying 
economic growth, implying that China and India do not have to 
choose between raising living standards and saving the planet. 
But that relies on the West continuing to pull off this tricky 
balancing act, while finding the billions that Stern says are 
needed. And, meanwhile, individuals will do what they can, 
turning off the TV and taking the train.

The climate crisis: 

• The US, Europe, Japan, India, and China together claim 75 per 
cent of the earth's 'biocapacity,' effectively leaving 25 per 
cent for the rest of the world, according to the Worldwatch 
Institute.

• In 2005, China alone used 26 per cent of the world's steel, 32 
per cent of the rice, and 47 per cent of the cement.

Total carbon emissions (million metric tonnes of CO2)

US

1984: 4,597.85 
2004: 5,912.21

UK

1984: 566.88 
2004: 579.68

India

1984: 400.55 
2004: 1,112.84

Japan

1984: 895.64 
2004: 1,262.10

China

1984: 1,707.91 
2004: 4,707.28

Top World Oil Consumers, 2005 (million barrels per day)

1) United States: 20.7 
2) China:6.9 
3) Japan:5.4 
4) Russia: 2.8 
5) Germany: 2.6 
6) India: 2.6 
7) Canada: 2.3 
8) Brazil: 2.2 
9) Korea, South: 2.2 
10) Mexico: 2.1 
11) France: 2.0 
12) Saudi Arabia: 2.0

Source: US government


ITEM #5
Title: £3.68 trillion: The price of failing to act on climate 
change 
Landmark report reveals apocalyptic cost of global warming
Source:  Copyright 2006, Guardian 
Date:  October 29, 2006
Byline:  Gaby Hinsliff

Britons face the prospect of a welter of new green taxes to 
tackle climate change, as the most authoritative report on 
global warming warns it will cost the world up to £3.68 trillion 
unless it is tackled within a decade.

The review by Sir Nicholas Stern, commissioned by the Chancellor 
of the Exchequer and published tomorrow, marks a crucial point 
in the debate by underlining how failure to act would trigger a 
catastrophic global recession. Unchecked climate change would 
turn 200 million people into refugees, the largest migration in 
modern history, as their homes succumbed to drought or flood.

Stern also warns that a successor to the Kyoto agreement on 
cutting greenhouse gas emissions should be signed next year, not 
by 2010/11 as planned. He forecasts that the world needs to 
spend 1 per cent of global GDP - equivalent to about £184bn - 
dealing with climate change now, or face a bill between five and 
20 times higher for damage caused by letting it continue. 
Unchecked climate change could thus cost as much as £566 for 
every man, woman and child now on the planet - roughly 6.5 
billion people.

The 700-page report argues that an international framework on 
climate change covering the globe will be necessary, and that 
different countries may opt to reduce emissions differently. 
Options range from many more green taxes to carbon trading.

Stern's verdict will create fierce political debate, with a 
growing belief in government that taxes on activities such as 
driving or flying will have to rise.

A leaked letter from the Environment Secretary, David Miliband, 
to the Chancellor, in the Mail on Sunday, proposes a range of 
'green' tax increases.

Stephen Byers, the former cabinet minister and member of an 
expert panel of international politicians on climate change, is 
meanwhile urging new taxes to help change behaviour, including a 
'global warming premium' on exotic fruit, vegetables and flowers 
flown thousands of miles across the world.

'There will need to be a global response [to Stern], but it must 
also filter down to change at domestic level,' he told an 
audience of businessmen in China this weekend. 'For the Labour 
party there must be no no-go areas for policy debate. The 
politics of taxation is changing and we need to be leading the 
debate, not playing catch-up. We should consider how we can 
change the structure of our tax system in a way which benefits 
the lowest-paid and penalises environmentally damaging 
activity.'

Byers is the first of several senior Labour figures expected to 
go public over green taxes, reflecting views within Downing 
Street that the public now fears climate change sufficiently to 
pay more for gas-guzzling activities. Charles Clarke, the former 
Home Secretary, is expected to join the debate, while Alan 
Milburn raised the issue in a recent speech. Such interventions 
will irritate the Chancellor, who regards taxation as his turf, 
particularly in advance of his autumn pre-budget report.

Air freight is one of the most lightly taxed areas of transport 
since aviation fuel is tax-free and there are no passengers to 
pay duty. Yet green campaigners say the planet can ill afford 
the thousands of 'food miles' travelled by exotic produce. One 
kilo of kiwi fruit flown from New Zealand to Europe discharges 
5kg of carbon into the atmosphere. Other options include hiking 
car tax on fuel-inefficient vehicles and cutting stamp duty on 
the purchase of energy-efficient houses. Byers will argue tax 
rises should be offset by cuts elsewhere.

The Stern report will advocate extending the European 'cap and 
trade' system - under which carbon emissions are capped at a 
certain level, with businesses which need to emit more forced to 
buy spare emissions quotas from low-polluting businesses around 
the world, encouraging industry to find cleaner and cheaper ways 
of operating.

He will also urge a doubling of investment in energy research 
and a speedier Kyoto process - meaning that negotiations with 
the US will have to be undertaken while George Bush is still 
president. International governments had hoped to deal with a 
more sympathetic successor after 2008.

Downing Street and the Treasury believe that the report marks a 
decisive moment in international politics. Stern's is the first 
heavyweight contribution by an economist rather than a scientist 
and senior officials believe he will make what might seem a 
hopelessly ambitious timetable credible. 'This will give us an 
argument to make,' said a Whitehall source. 'I think we are at a 
tipping point in terms of the debate, as we were at a tipping 
point in 2004/05 in terms of the science.'

Stern's forecast cost of 1 per cent of global GDP is roughly the 
same amount as is spent worldwide on advertising, and half what 
the World Bank estimates a full-blown flu pandemic would cost. 
Without early intervention, he estimates the cost would be 5-20 
per cent of GDP, some paid by governments, some by the private 
sector. But he stresses that unilateral action will not be 
enough - if Britain shut down all its power stations tomorrow, 
the reduction in global emissions would be cancelled out within 
13 months by rising emissions from China.

Stern will advocate new funds to help Africa and developing 
nations adapt, but will argue the key challenge is from emerging 
nations such as China and India. Emissions from China are nearly 
level with the US and likely to increase as the Chinese get more 
cars and electrical goods - up to 30 million households are 
likely to get digital TVs alone in the next few years. Britain 
will push this week for more energy-efficient consumer goods.

The Tory environment spokesman, Peter Ainsworth, who has argued 
green tax should rise as a proportion of overall taxation, said 
he hoped the Stern report 'spurs the government into being much 
more proactive than it has been'.

Britain's share of revenue from green taxes is lower now than in 
1994, partly because of the freezing of petrol duty after fuel 
protests.

Green taxes are controversial because if they do change 
behaviour, tax income falls, emptying Treasury coffers. But 
supporters argue that, over time, the tax system could be 
shifted back towards more personal taxation.


ITEM #6
Title: Key points in UK climate change report 
Source:  Copyright 2006, Reuters 
Date:  October 28, 2006

Ignoring climate change could lead to economic upheaval on the 
scale of the 1930s Depression, underlining the need for urgent 
action to combat global warming, a British report on the costs 
of climate change says.

Here are some key findings from the report, a 27-page summary of 
which was obtained by Reuters:

* On current trends, average global temperatures will rise by 2-
3 degrees centigrade within the next 50 years or so.

* If emissions continue to grow, the earth could warm by several 
more degrees, with severe consequences that would hit poor 
countries most. 

* Stabilising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cost about 
1 percent of annual global output by 2050. If no action is 
taken, climate change will reduce global consumption per head by 
between five and 20 percent. 

* The global power sector will have to be at least 60 percent, 
and perhaps as much as 75 percent, decarbonised by 2050 to 
stabilise greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

* Markets for low-carbon energy products are likely to be worth 
at least $500 billion per year by 2050, and perhaps more.

* Worldwide incentives to encourage the use of new low-carbon 
technologies should be raised by two to five times from the 
current level of some $34 billion a year.

* Emissions from deforestation are estimated to represent more 
than 18 percent of global emissions, a share greater than is 
produced by the global transport sector.

* The poorest developing countries will be hit earliest and 
hardest by climate change. The international community has an 
obligation to support them in adapting to climate change.


ITEM #7
Title: Report: Britain considering 'green taxes' to help combat 
climate change 
Source:  Copyright 2006, Associated Press 
Date:  October 28, 2006

A British Sunday newspaper reported that the government could 
levy new "green taxes" to halt climate change.

The Mail on Sunday said in early editions Saturday that it had 
obtained a letter written puportedly written by Environment 
Minister David Miliband, to the treasurer, Gordon Brown, which 
called for higher taxes on cheap airline flights, fuel, and 
high-emission vehicles.

The government should "increase the pace of existing tax 
measures, broaden them into sectors where incentives to cut 
carbon emissions are weak and identify new instruments to drive 
progress in tackling greenhouse gas," the newspaper quotes the 
letter as saying.

Low-cost airline flights are an area a five pound (US$9.50; 
€7.45) increase in taxes, would raise 400 million pounds (US$760 
million; €600 million) a year, the report said. The letter 
recommends that the government explore a "substantial increase" 
in taxes for high-emission vehicles, the newspaper said.

The newspaper quoted an aide to Miliband as saying that the 
letter contained only ideas, rather than a package of measures.

On Monday, a report on climate change, commissioned by Brown, is 
due to be released. The 700-page report is expected say global 
warming could cost world economies trillions of pounds (dollars, 
euros), the Observer reported.

The newspaper said the report will say the world needs to spend 
one per cent of global gross domestic product — which it 
calculated as 184 billion pounds (US$349 billion; €274 billion) 
— to deal with climate change; Otherwise, the bill would reach 
into the trillions.

The report will also recommend that a successor to the Kyoto 
accord should be signed next year rather than waiting for 2010 
or 2011 because of the urgency of the problem, the Observer 
said.