Category:Trucost: Difference between revisions

From Green Policy
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<addthis />
[[File:Featured.png]]


<big><big>'''Exploring and Accounting for True Costs'''</big></big>
<big><big>'''Exploring and Accounting for True Costs'''</big></big>

Latest revision as of 18:16, 1 May 2019

<addthis />

Featured.png

Exploring and Accounting for True Costs


Time for a Price on Carbon


The World Is Dangerously Lowballing The Economic Cost Of Climate Change

Economic models significantly underestimate climate change risks -- It’s almost impossible to calculate how many trillions of dollars it could cost.

Review of Environmental Economics and Policy

June 2018

Source: London School of Economics


The paper's authors, Thomas Stoerk of the Environmental Defense Fund, Gernot Wagner of the Harvard University Center for the Environment and Bob Ward of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science, draw attention to "mounting evidence that current economic models of the aggregate global impacts of climate change are inadequate in their treatment of uncertainty and grossly underestimate potential future risks."

They warn that the "integrated assessment models" used by economists "largely ignore the potential for 'tipping points' beyond which impacts accelerate, become unstoppable, or become irreversible." As a result "they inadequately account for the potential damages from climate change, especially at moderate to high levels of warming," due to rises in global mean temperature of more than 2 Celsius degrees.

The authors draw attention to "a major discrepancy between scientific and economic estimates of the impacts of unmanaged future climate change." They state: "These discrepancies between the physical and the economic impact estimates are large, and they matter. However, physical impacts are often not translated into monetary terms and they have largely been ignored by climate economists."


∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞


Trucost / TEEB


A new report by Trucost on behalf of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) program sponsored by United Nations Environmental Program, examined the money earned by the biggest industries on this planet, and then contrasted them with 100 different types of environmental costs. To make this easier, they turned these 100 categories into 6: water use, land use, greenhouse gas emissions, waste pollution, land pollution, and water pollution.

The report found that when you take the externalized costs into effect, essentially NONE of the industries was actually making a profit. The huge profit margins being made by the world’s most profitable industries (oil, meat, tobacco, mining, electronics) is being paid for against the future: we are trading long term sustainability for the benefit of shareholders.

Sometimes the environmental costs vastly outweighed revenue, meaning that these industries would be constantly losing money had they actually been paying for the ecological damage and strain they were causing.

In terms of land and water use: almost no companies are actually paying a price remotely comparable for what they are actually taking away from the ecosystems.


Pages in category "Trucost"

The following 5 pages are in this category, out of 5 total.

Media in category "Trucost"

The following 6 files are in this category, out of 6 total.