Email 
Print 
INTERVIEW-New book puts cost of saving planet at $190 bln
Written by: Tim Large
Handout satellite image of Hurricane John in 2006 from the National Hurricane Centre in Miami. REUTERS/NOAA
What would it cost to wipe out world poverty, guarantee universal health care, stabilise population growth and roll back the ravages of global warming? About $190 billion a year, or the equivalent of a third of U.S. annual military expenditure, a prominent environmental economist says in a new book. "Once you accept that climate change, population growth, spreading water shortages, rising food prices etcetera are threats to our security, it changes your whole way of thinking about how you use public resources," Lester Brown told Reuters in an interview. From eradicating adult illiteracy to restoring fisheries and stabilising water tables, the head of the Earth Policy Institute think tank in Washington calculates the cost of saving civilisation in a new edition of his best-selling "Plan B". The $190 billion price tag compares with $1.2 trillion that world governments spent on military budgets in 2006. The United States splurged the most with $560 billion. Describing a planet on the brink of environmental meltdown, Brown calls for a "great mobilisation" to fight climate change, equivalent to the Allied wartime effort to beat Nazi Germany. Plan A would be for the world to continue on its present course. Plan B is Brown's strategy to stabilise climate, stem runaway population growth, eradicate poverty and restore damaged ecosystems. Brown argues that failure to achieve any one of these goals would result in defeat overall. "I don't think Plan B is perfect, but it's the only plan out there -- the only alternative to business as usual," he said. "One might think that the World Bank or the U.N. or someone would have a plan that takes into account how systems are interacting and what that translates into, but the reality is this is the only one." "ECOLOGICAL HONESTY" The centrepiece of Brown's blueprint for change is a detailed plan to cut global carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2020 to keep a lid on future temperature rises. He also calls for a restructuring of the world economy -- and tax systems in particular -- to make markets "ecologically honest", meaning that commodity prices should reflect indirect environmental costs. Take the price of water, which Brown argues is too cheap to discourage countries from exhausting vital sources. "The thing to keep in mind is that it takes 1,000 tonnes of water to produce one tonne of grain," he said. "Seventy percent of all the water we use in the world -- that we pump from underground or divert from rivers -- is used in irrigation. Not everyone has connected the dots to see that a future of water shortages will be a future of food shortages." Brown, who has authored or coauthored more than 50 books, was one of the first economists to warn that the boom in biofuels could be a threat to global food security. "In this new world where the price of grain is tied to the price of oil, if the price of oil goes up, so grain goes up," he said. "And that is a threat to political stability in the world that I don't think we've come close to grasping yet." A central theme of "Plan B" is that it's not too late to save the planet -- if we act now. That optimism sets Brown apart from eco-pioneers like Gaia guru James Lovelock, who has concluded it's too late to reverse the devastating effects of climate change. "He might be right, and he's not the only one who thinks that," Brown said. "I have to hope there's a chance we can turn it around. Otherwise there's no point. Even if we lose it's better to go down fighting than just standing there."
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
3 responses to “INTERVIEW-New book puts cost of saving planet at $190 bln”
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
Leave a Reply
When you submit a comment to us we request your name, e-mail address and optionally a link to a website. Please note where you submit a website address, we may link to it via your name. By sending us a comment, you accept that we have the right to show the comment and your name to users. Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily. Additionally, if you would like your comment removed at anytime, you'll have to use this e-mail address when you contact us. To remove a comment at any time please e-mail us at blogs-(at)-reuters-(dot)-com (address obscured to avoid spam) specifying who you are and what you would like removed. We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information. We reserve the right to edit comments in order to maintain the quality of the comments, and may not include links to irrelevant material. We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous. Reuters will use your data in accordance with Reuters privacy policy. Reuters Group is primarily responsible for managing your data. As Reuters is a global company your data will be transferred and available internationally, including in countries which do not have privacy laws but Reuters seeks to comply with its privacy policy.
Unlike some other content on this website, the written content in this article may be republished or redistributed by any means free of charge. Any use of photographs and graphics on this website is expressly prohibited. You must check whether written content contained in other articles on this website may be republished or redistributed without the express permission of Reuters or the relevant third party provider.
%}
Tim Large has been AlertNet's deputy editor since 2003. Prior to that, he was a correspondent with Reuters in Tokyo, a staff writer on a major Japanese daily and news editor of a popular science website. He has written widely on politics, economics, social issues and the arts. He is also a passionate photographer.
13 Mar 2008 09:46:02 GMT
Climate Change ââ¬" the only solution is to change our traditional beliefs I agree whole heartedly with this articles theme but would go a stage further. We believe it is our right to take from this planet whatever, whenever and however we choose, without any thought or responsibility for managing what we are doing ââ¬" and still continues today in spite of accelerating climate change. We are seeing increasing droughts and drying up of riverbeds, as well as flooding from whatever causes and rising temperatures. All of these changes in environmental balance directly affect our water supplies and seriously hinder food production, leading to our increasing inability to feed ourselves. We are now further increasing this dangerous situation as we begin to our use our food stocks for ethanol production to propel our transport. If we now place in this equation our belief in financial management and the law of supply and demand to regulate what we use, then a growing shortage of food means ever increasing prices. This in turn will see an increasing number of people unable to feed themselves as basic life sustaining nourishment is taken beyond their financial capabilities. We are already beginning to see the price of basic foodstuffs rise to feed the growing demand for ethanol. Rising grain prices directly affect the prices of our other food sources such as meat and eggs, where up to a 20% increase in prices has occurred over just the last 12 months in China alone ââ¬" and theirs is quite a large population! As this problem escalates our traditional political institutions will need to be seen to be doing something, and so we lapse into blame as one race accuses another of hoarding. The application of ââ¬Ålabelsâ⬠begins as hatred is stirred up between supposedly differing groups, be they racial, religious or any other ethnic grouping. And so we deteriorate into conflict, further expanding the threat to our existence as a civilisation through the powerful weapons we have now developed, and our inability to manage them effectively because of the ancient beliefs we still hold about each other and our surroundings. The most powerful nation may come out on top by annihilating everyone else - but as global war escalates, who can say with any degree of certainty that they too will not blow themselves off the face of this beautiful planet, given the nature of modern terrorist warfare and the inability to determine who is the â⬠enemyâ⬠? I do not believe I am exaggerating anything within this scenario, but simply applying the effects of our traditional and limiting beliefs to the growing problem we are creating, and which they can only fuel rather than resolve. By challenging what we believe, and in so doing changing our relationship with each other and our surroundings, I believe it is possible to create the opportunity for a huge evolutionary leap forward as a species. We are at a unique moment in time in our history and embedded within this era are the ingredients for either our destruction or survival ââ¬" the choice is ours.
15 Mar 2008 09:36:10 GMT
I wish to know if the emission from an internal combustion engine is carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide. If it is the former there is no environmental hazard as CO could be oxidised in a catlytic converter to oxygen. Petrol, a fossil, fuel is not contributing to the Green House Effect and Climate Change. Also, if the Earth were to enter an Ice Age where will you find the coal to warm the Planet? Keep the coal in the ground for the future generations.
Mandate the manufacturers of biodiel to produce equal quantity of corn for food as well as for fuel; otherwise their licence would be cancelled. Earthmen are foolish that an alien would see that we allow fresh water to get mixed with the salt water in the sea and then we recycle the salt water to get the fresh water back.They must be wondering what kind of a technology this is. Sam Kulam. I have a innovative suggestion to generate electricity from the Earth as the 'stator' and an orbiting "Inductor"* , the part in a generator, which is called the "rotor" to orbit the Earth. No energy is required to make the rotor to move unlike in a coal-fired power station coal is used to make warer boli to produce steam to make the turbine to rotate the rotor*. It is clean, uses no coal, no water or any polluting chemicals. As it is above the Atmosphere, there is no atmopheric polluion. There are no citaionsin any electricla engineering journals.It is entirely my original ideas based on electrical engineering principles. I have no website: post any reply to my mail or email to my yahoo address. *terms in electrical engineering.01 Apr 2008 14:11:34 GMT
This sounds interesting. Could you explain your idea for the layman. Please site journals, references, original drawings, and texts, that support principals and methods of this invention. Al Friedman