 Wysłany: 25 Temat postu: |
|
| People.com.cn Tokyo on 14 June,mulberry purse, (reporter Yu Qing ) according to Kyodo news,Gilet Abercrombie, Japan and South Korea government 14 days in the Japanese Foreign Ministry held a meeting of the heads of the six party talks,giacconi woolrich outlet, confirmed that the three stage for the resumption of the Six Party Talks: from the North South dialogue began,giubbotti moncler uomo, after the consultations,moncler homme, the resumption of the six party talks. At the same time,piumini woolrich, the two sides also exchanged views on the North Korean uranium enrichment,hollister pas cher, concrete action is necessary to the implementation of the denuclearization of the DPRK to reach a consensus.
attended the Japanese representative meeting is the director of Oceania Bureau of the Ministry of foreign affairs of Japan Asia Sugiyama Shinsuke,scarpe hogan prezzi, South Korea is South Korean Foreign Minister on behalf of the minister Wei Shengluo peace negotiations. Wei Shengluo introduced the present for the resumption of dialogue between the north and the south,soldes Hollister pas cher, and Sino US negotiation situations. Shan Shan,doudoune moncler enfant, asked South Korea to help resolve the abduction issue. Wei Shengluo told reporters after the meeting: "Japan and the ROK leaders meeting held in May,hollister clothes uk, also confirmed the importance of the North South dialogue. If North Korea agreed to participate in towards the denuclearization of the consultation,moncler pas cher, we will unconditionally attended the meeting." 相关的主题文章： Shandong province to promote water aquaculture cer Egyptian Foreign Minister changed again American vice president Biden's 22 day visit to Mongolia of China Shanghai City, jointly with the Municipal Commission of Commerce, the district actively implement measures, efforts to defuse the cabbage and other vegetables and seasonal varieties structural slow-moving problem. |
|
| Wysłany: 16 Temat postu: Thinking about the cost of global warming |
|
| Thinking about the cost of global warming
post by Bill Gardner Preventing (or mitigating) global warming is going to be expensive. But how much should we spend on prevention, and when? To answer that question it seems natural to first estimate how much global warming will cost. But to do that, we have to define a measure of such costs. And that not easy. One way to calculate the cost of global warming is to project future trajectories of global gross domestic product (GDP) based on different assumptions about how the climate works and different regimes of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. So one idea is that we should pick the mix of prevention/mitigation strategies that maximizes long term GDP. This is appealing because it gives us a single dimension to rank solutions on. Nordhaus and Stern read only the former) are comprehensive analyses of the costs of warming and preventing warming that measure harm using GDP. For a brief, thoughtful (and conservative) discussion, see Manzi. looking only at GDP is an inadequate way to think about the cost of global warming, for several reasons. GDP sums up the value of the goods and services we produce and consume. It takes no account of the particular individuals who gain and lose. Every analysis I have seen suggests that the current and future global poor will be harmed by warming significantly more than the global rich; whereas the global rich will benefit substantially more from global energy consumption. Even if we were to conclude that the aggregate harm of global warming was acceptable, the uneven distribution of those harms is likely to be unjust. GDP has an uncertain relationship to human wellbeing, and it is human wellbeing that truly matters. There are scenarios for global warming in which large areas of the world that are currently temperate will experience sustained summer peak temperatures in the range of 3540C (95104F), resulting in significant ecosystem loss. This might not, however, dramatically reduce GDP, because all the efforts we have to undertake to adapt to increased global temperature will contribute to GDP. Suppose an increase in temperature kept GDP constant but shifted our economical activity toward producing powerful air conditioners,[url=http://www.floware.fr]michael kors pas cher[/url], and away from other things. We would be worse off, whatever GDP says. More importantly, global warming may produce effects on wellbeing that are not captured by GDP. The increasing concentration of CO2 is rapidly increasing the acidity of the ocean. There is a point where the pH will be incompatible with the survival of most ocean species. If the oceans die, would the resulting loss of GDP be our only loss of wellbeing? |
|