*The Real Costs of Saving the Planet

Critics say limiting carbon emissions could cost trillions. But a new study suggests the costs are much lower


On Dec. 5, the U.S. Senate will begin marking up a bill that would,
for the first time, put mandatory limits on the gas emissions that are
warming the planet. The bill, sponsored by Senators John Warner (R-Va.)
and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), imposes caps on the amount of carbon
dioxide allowed to spew from power plants, cars, and others sources. It
would also permit companies that cut more emissions than required to
sell their excess reductions to those that can't afford to meet the
limit. Economists say this sort of cap and trade scheme, which has
worked well in reducing acid rain-causing pollution, could help the
economy slash emissions at the lowest possible costs.


Meanwhile, delegates from around the world are meeting in Bali,
Indonesia, trying to hammer out a global agreement to cut emissions.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks: the perceived high costs.


But what are those costs? If you listen to opponents of action
against climate change, the American economy will be brought to its
knees by such efforts. The Chamber of Commerce, for instance, says the
bill would cost 3.4 million Americans their jobs; the nation's gross
domestic product, now about $13 trillion, would drop to $12 trillion;
and American consumers would pay as much as $6 trillion more because of
higher prices for gas, heating oil, and many other goods. Other
economic projections put the total price tag for preventing dangerous
climate change at up to $20 trillion.

Yet a new analysis from McKinsey & Co.<
not only pegs the price tag for making substantial cuts at just a few
billion dollars, it also shows that at least 40% of the reductions
bring actual savings to the economy, not costs.


Long-Term Forecasts Are Less Reliable

Why the big difference? First consider the numbers used by the
opponents. Typically, they come from large-scale mathematical models of
the economy. These models look at the economy from the top down. They
try to calculate the effects of changes such as rising energy costs or
financial penalties for carbon emissions. These models are widely used
to predict short-term changes in the economy. But longer-term forecasts
are less accurate because of their increasing reliance on the initial
assumptions.


For example, the final result varies dramatically depending on the
assumptions about the pace of innovation. If the model assumes that
development of new forms of renewable energy will continue at the same
rate as before carbon emission limits were enacted (when the financial
incentives for development were lower), then cutting carbon emissions
will be costly. But if you assume that an added financial incentive,
such as a price on carbon emissions, will increase the pace of
innovation and the development of new technologies, then meeting the
limits will be cheaper. And if the model discounts the future benefits
of avoiding the dangers of warming in terms of their present value, it
will also predict higher overall costs.


Different Conclusions Are Possible

Yet even with these inherent limitations, many of the models suggest
that the ultimate cost of slowing global warming is reasonable.
Stanford University climatologist Stephen Schneider, for instance, has
analyzed one of the most prominent models, from Yale's William
Nordhaus. According to Nordhaus' results, stabilizing the climate would
be "unimaginably expensive—$20 trillion," Schneider says.


But the $20 trillion hit to the economy isn't immediate. Instead,
that's the calculated cost in the year 2100, Schneider says, not now.
What does that really mean? Schneider ran the numbers, assuming the
economy grows at about 2% per year. The seemingly huge $20 trillion
price tag works out to "a one-year delay in being 500% richer," he
says. In other words, paying the price to reduce climate change would
mean Americans would have to wait until 2101 to be as rich as they
otherwise would have been in 2100. To Schneider, that's a minuscule
price to pay for saving the planet from the dangers of global warming.
"Are you out of your mind? Who wouldn't take that?" he says.


There's also a completely different way to approach the question of
costs. Instead of using a big, complicated mathematical model that
looks down at the economy, you can start by looking at the many
individual steps that could be taken to reduce emissions, and work from
the bottom up. That's what McKinsey did in its recently released
report.

Cost-Saving Steps


The report was "born of the frustration that there are no solid facts
out there about the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions,"
explains McKinsey director Jack Stephenson. So Stephenson and his team
plunged ahead. They got support for the effort from Royal Dutch Shell
and a couple of environmental groups. They analyzed 250 possible steps,
from more fuel-efficient cars and buildings to all types of cleaner
energy. And they assumed people wouldn't change anything about their
lifestyles, driving just as much and not lowering their thermostats.


The results are surprising. The report concludes that the U.S. can
cut its greenhouse emissions in half from projected levels in 2030 at
minimal cost. None of the steps would cost more than $50 per ton of
carbon dioxide emissions avoided. Plus, 40% of the reductions would
actually save money. That puts the overall cost at just a few dollars
per ton of carbon dioxide—or in the tens of billions of dollars
overall.


Moreover, it doesn't take any breakthroughs in technology. "Eighty
percent of the reductions come from technology that exists today at the
commercial scale," says Stephenson. And the remaining 20% comes from
ideas already well along in development, such as hybrid cars that plug
into electrical outlets and have batteries big enough to go 30 or 40
miles on electric power alone and biofuels made from cellulose (such as
prairie grass) rather than foodstuffs like corn.


Waste Not

The overall price tag is so low because there are many simple ways
the country can use energy more efficiently, Stephenson explains. "The
U.S. wastes a huge amount of energy," he says. The vast majority of the
power used by VCRs and DVD players occurs when they're not even turned
on, for instance. Electronics equipment, buildings, lighting, water
heaters, and autos are just some of the many products and facilities
that could be far more efficient. Improving efficiency in this way
would save money, not cost money, McKinsey figures.


Overall, the McKinsey report paints a far more encouraging picture
than the figures from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "It's the
difference between a business consultant who sees opportunities for
business, and a hired-gun economist," says Dan Lashof, science director
of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council.


Until the U.S. actually tries to reduce its greenhouse gas
emissions, we won't know who's right. But it does seem clear that the
economy wouldn't be crippled. "The common perception of high costs is
just so radically wrong," concludes Stanford's Schneider.

*Yesterday's Climate Change Demo.

At yesterday's Climate Change demo with L to R: Tim Turner, Tim Summers, Shasha Khan, myself and Heather Finlay.

*CYCLING.

James Purnell MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, has announced a major shift in Government sports policy which segments cycling into 'Sport' and 'Recreation'.

Sport England will no longer fund recreational cycling. For those of us who've given up our aims of Olympic glory this may not seem like too much of an issue, but it completely ignores cycling's contribution to Government's physical activity strategy.

Santa arrested.

I see that santas in Australia have been banned from crying HO-HO-HO as being some way politicial incorrect. They now have to say HA-HA-HA.

In 1986, by father got pulled by a policeman for playing 'Jingle Bells' while dressed as Santa Claus.

My brother had a toy shop and every year he had Santa arriving on different transport. In 1986 he had my father as Santa on the back of a truck with a tape recorder playing festive tunes. The parade was going well until a policeman stepped out and demanded to see their public broadcast permit. Actually my brother or the cop did not know that you do not need a broadcast permit as long as the vehicle is moving.

Anyway, the parade was allowed to proceed in silence.

There was a local reporter in the crowd, who got my father to pose behind an iron gate - 'Santa in jail'. This appeared in the Limerick Leader, then BBC Northern Ireland rang up and interviewed my father.

Next day my brother had a call from a producer in RTE (The Irish national TV company): "Have you presented your driving licence and insurance to the Gardai?" When Liam replied in the negative the producer asked him to delay it for a day.
On that day, my father, dressed as Santa, was filmed going into the police station. The seargent was not pleased with the policeman. "I've just had a call from my Superintendent and he has had a call from the Minister of Justice asking if we had anything better to do than in Kilmallock than going around arresting Santas" he said.

The RTE film was shown in the USA, Russia, Australia and South Africa. It made all the papers. I remember seeing it on the front page of The Sun, without realising that the story was about my father:-)

Naturally there was no charges, but the policeman was transferred to jail duties in Limerick Prison for several weeks.

My father had fan mail from all over the world for years afterwards.

*COME TO THE DEMO TOMORROW.

PLEASE COME ALONG TO THE DEMO TOMORROW. BRING FRIENDS, LOCAL GP BANNER ETC.

I will be running the Green Party stall at Grosvenor Square. I will have copies of our new newspaper 'London Green News'

SATURDAY 8TH DECEMBER, LONDON

10.00 am Cycle Protest assembles at Lincoln's Inn Fields

10.30 am Biofuelwatch protest outside the Tesco Metro at 17/25 Regent
Street, Cllr Andrew Boswell to speak

12 noon Assemble Milbank for main march

The Green Party Stall at MILLBANK will be at the LAMBETH BRIDGE end. Nearest tube WESTMINSTER , walk past H of Parliament .
We will be setting up from about 10.30 am.

2.30 Green Party Principal Speaker Caroline Lucas MEP to speak at
rally outside US embassy, alongside George Monbiot and others

The UK national demonstration in London will be one of many
demonstrations on climate change taking place all around the world on
the same day, midway through the UN Climate Talks in Bali. Join the
thousands of people marching through the streets of London to call
for critical immediate global political action on climate change
before it's too late.

5.00 pm to 2.00 am AFTER-PARTY and FUNDRAISER
After-Party and Campaign against Climate Change fundraiser at the Synergy Centre. Farmers Road, Camberwell - nearest tube Oval (directions to get there here , map here.) This will feature music from Seize the Day and others. Find more details here on the Synergy website.
There will be limited floor space available for an overnight stay at the Synergy centre - you will need to book a place by emailing us at info@campaigncc.org.

*CHRISTMAS WITHOUT CRUELTY FAYRE - Sunday next

This is a very enjoyable event. Ideal for picking up Christmas presents. Only £1 to get in. Loads of events for the kids.

London GP will have a stall. We are in the Lower Foyer. Drop in and have a chat.


Animal Aid Press release:

Animal Aid's Christmas Without Cruelty Fair: Kensington Town Hall, London, Sunday 2 December
Come along and join in all the fun of the Fair. There's a full programme of events and activities, including a short message of support from our patron Tony Benn, who will be at the Fair from 11am. See the website for full details.


Celebrity Auction

The lively Noel Lynch will be wielding his gavel for the celebrity live auction this year, and kicking off the proceedings at 2.30pm in the downstairs foyer. Items up for auction include Tony Benn's pipe, an Arsenal pennant signed by the 1st team, a signed Melanie C T-shirt and photo, a camisole from Kate Winslet and a photo and werewolf action figure from Doctor Who, both signed by David Tennant.

*Sellafield/Chernobyl

In more than its fifty year history BNFL's Sellafield complex has released at least as much radioactivity into the surrounding environment as was released in the Chernobyl accident.

Mike Townsley of Greenpeace International: “Sellafield is a slow- motion Chernobyl, an accident played out over the last four decades'."

*QUOTED IN YESTERDAY'S GUARDIAN.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2215376,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed

To anyone who is not already aware, the Green Party is engaged in an internal referendum on whether to have a leader. The proposition is opposed by most activists but sounds attractive to the ‘armchair members’ At the recent AGM of the London Federation of Green Parties, the YES side were only able to muster nine votes in the straw poll, despite fielding some very high profile speakers.

My factual comments have brought down the wrath of some of the extremists on the YES side:-)

Here are the websites from both sides:

www.greenempowerment.org.uk
http://www.greenyes.org

*London Green News/'Stop and Kill'

Apologies to the readers out there. I have not been posting much lately. With only 22 weeks to the GLA elections, things are just hectic. In fact, last night was my first at home in eleven days. Even then, the last e-mails were sent out after midnight. Two events stand out over the last week:

1) BRIEFING on ‘STOP AND KILL’ from the Metropolitan Police:

This was conducted by two senior policemen at Scotland Yard. In preparation for it, I studied the Stockwell 1 report (180 pages) and the Stockwell 2 report (140 pages). Fascinating, and scary stuff!! While some of the reports are repetitive, I would urge anyone interested in the subject to read them – available on the Met website.

I came away from the briefing even more scared than before:-) For one thing, an armed policeman can shoot to kill at any time if he thinks his life or the life of a member of the public is in danger. This, apparently, has always been the case! Being Irish I knew this already.

The officers also stated that Tony Blair was not involved in the attempt to gag the independent investigation, contrary to what is in the Stockwell 1 report (section 17.21)

Reading the report, one can see that it could have happened to you or me or anyone if you are ‘in the wrong place at the wrong time’, as in the Pogues song about another miscarriage of Justice – The Birmingham 6. It is quite obvious from the report that John-Charles did absolute nothing wrong and had not acted in a suspicious manner.


2) LONDON GREEN NEWS:
On Thursday last I was involved in the signing-off of the first ever issue of the London Green Party’s new tabloid newspaper London Green News. This was the culmination of a long held dream of mine. On the first issue, we have a print run of 170,000. That’s about the same as the Guardian in London. It will be hitting the streets this coming weekend. Volunteers for distribution are very welcome. E-mail me at noellynch@lineone.net

*CHILD POVERTY

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article3160655.ece

Depth of child poverty in Britain exposed by report
By Emily Dugan

Published: 15 November 2007

The true hardships of the one in three children in Britain who live in poverty are exposed in a new report revealing that a quarter of the country's poorest households cannot afford to put a daily hot meal on the table for every family member.

The ground-breaking report, Living With Hardship 24/7, which was published yesterday by the child poverty charity The Frank Buttle Trust, takes an in-depth look at the experiences of families surviving in low-income households, exposing details of their daily struggles that would not look out of place in a developing country.

The study found that children as young as five were so keenly aware of their parents' financial difficulties that they gave back money to help support the household. The children surveyed were from 70 families across the country with an income of less than £11,000.

Almost half of the parents interviewed said they could not afford basic toys or sports equipment for their children, and a third did not have enough money to buy the winter clothes their offspring needed. Some children said they did not ask for Christmas presents for fear of adding to their parents' burden.
Eight-year-old Fiona said her parents' financial situation made her fear for her sister's life. Her parents were dependent on benefits and were £30,000 in debt. Asked how she felt about their predicament, Fiona said: "I'm really, really scared ... Because if we don't have much money then we won't buy food and then my baby sister will die."

The report's author, Dr Carol-Ann Hooper, a senior lecturer in social policy at the University of York, said: "Children as young as five recognised that poverty was a key source of stress for their parents, and some tried to alleviate it by hiding their needs and wishes, and giving or lending money they had received from other family members. They were also often sad, angry, frustrated or upset by the impacts of poverty on their lives and hardship clearly impacted in a range of ways on all dimensions of children's well-being."

The anxiety of children who felt they should be helping more was also highlighted in the report. Amy, nine, explained how she was worried about her mother being able to afford a birthday present for her: "I just think I should really be paying for stuff," she said. "I should do more for my mum that I'm not doing really, but I don't really have enough money to do any more."

In the foreword to the report, the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, wrote: "The Government pledged in 1999 to halve child poverty by 2010 and to end it by 2020. While absolute poverty in Britain has fallen as a result of the measures taken by the Government, there are still 2.8 million children living in poverty in the UK today – that is one in three children. A great deal more needs to be done."

End Child Poverty, a coalition of 100 children's charities, has been lobbying the Government to keep its promise of eradicating child poverty by 2020. This is looking increasingly less likely, as the number of minors living in poverty rose by 100,000 last year.

Hilary Fisher, the director of End Child Poverty, said: "It's shocking to think that in this country, one of the richest in the world, there are children worried their siblings might die because they don't have enough food. We have five-year-olds so concerned about money that if they receive any they give it to their parents.

"Most people in the UK don't believe poverty exists, and they can't imagine what it looks like. We have one of the highest rates of child poverty in the industrialised world and we need action now to tackle it. We are calling on the Chancellor to make the 2008 Budget a Budget to end child poverty. Without the investment of an extra £4bn by April 2009, the Government's commitment to child poverty targets will just be a hollow promise."

Laura Macarthur, 22: 'Often I don't eat'

Laura Macarthur, 22, a single mother, lives in Huddersfield with her one-year-old son, Camden. She is unemployed and surviving on benefits. "I don't manage to pay all the bills. With it getting so cold now we need the heating on more; it's very difficult. Sometimes I run out of gas or electricity because I haven't been able to top up the meter." When Ms Macarthur broke up with her boyfriend she was left with nowhere to go, so she went to the local homeless centre. "I had to take the first council flat that came up, but it was in a really rough estate, and had almost no provisions. Often I don't eat because I can't afford to. I'm more worried about feeding Camden. The Government seems to think you only need £59 a week to survive, but it's not enough, and child benefit doesn't come close to covering the extra amount that you need to bring up kids."

*PRAKASH CALLS FOR TARGETING OF SCIENTIST

C. S. Prakash of AgBioWorld and his associates have called for fellow GM lobbyists to target Dr Michael Antoniou of Kings College after he argued in an article in the UK's Independent newspaper that "genetically modified crops are dangerous and unnecessary." http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8382

Dr. Antoniou is one of the clearest thinking scientists that I have ever met. I once chaired a meeting where he spoke. He demonstrated very clearly why GM is such bad science.

*Knickers to the generals.

Knickers to the generals.
From The Belfast Telegraph.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
By Andrew Buncombe
Activists seeking to pressure the Burmese regime are targeting the superstitions of its senior generals by asking for people around the world to send women's underwear to the junta.
In what may be a first, campaigners based in Thailand have called for supporters to "post, deliver or fling" the underwear to their nearest Burmese embassy. They believe the senior members of the junta – some known to be deeply superstitious – could be made to believe they will lose their authority should they come into contact with the lingerie.

" The Burma military regime is not only brutal but very superstitious. They believe that contact with a woman's panties or sarong can rob them of their power," says the website of the Lanna Action for Burma group, based in Chiang Mai, in northern Thailand. The group says that Burmese embassies have already received underwear from people in Thailand, Australia, Singapore and the UK.

One of the group's activists, Tomoko, said: "We want to raise awareness first, and we want to target officials, letting them know we are against them abusing their power. We are sending the generals panties as a symbol of putting their power down."

What result the underwear campaign will have is unclear. Burma's senior general, Than Shwe, is known to be very superstitious. When the regime decided to move its capital from Rangoon to a new location deep in the jungle at Naypidaw, the general sought the advice of a numerologist who told him that the most auspicious time for the move would be 6.37 in the morning. As a result, the first convoy of government trucks left Rangoon at precisely that time.

News of the latest effort by activists to pressure the regime came as hundreds of Burmese riot police returned to the streets of Rangoon yesterday. The Buddhist Lent season was ending, allowing monks to move about again, and authorities feared they might spark off protests.

*Walls that pee back.

The mayor of Paris, who made environmental concerns
a major priority, is taking aim at another threat to the
city's cleanliness -- public urination.

Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe, who made all self-cleaning Sanisette
toilets in streets and parks free of charge in February,
is turning to a new method of keeping urination off the
streets and in the toilets: walls that pee back, The
Telegraph reported Monday.

"Le mur anti-pipi" is an undulating wall that features sloping surfaces that reflect urine streams back toward their source, the newspaper said.


"The jet of pee is rather oblique. If it meets a sloping
surface it is sent back to the trousers," said Etienne
Vanderpooten, a municipal architect who has been working
on halting public urination for 25 years. "It is the case
of the arroseur arrose (the sprinkler sprinkled),"

*ODD FACTS DEPT.

The first shopping cart was introduced on June 4, 1937, the invention of Sylvan Goldman, owner of the Piggly-Wiggly supermarket chain in Oklahoma City.

With the assistance of Fred Young, a mechanic, Goldman constructed the first shopping cart, basing his design on that of a wooden folding chair. They built it with a metal frame and added wheels and wire baskets, and advertised the invention as part of a new “No Basket Carrying Plan.”

The invention did not catch on immediately. Men found them effeminate; women found them suggestive of a baby carriage. "I've pushed my last baby buggy," offended women informed him.

After hiring several male and female models posing as shoppers to push his new invention around his store and demonstrate their utility, as well as greeters to explain their use, shopping carts became extremely popular and Goldman became a multimillionaire.