WARNING:
JavaScript is turned OFF. None of the links on this concept map will
work until it is reactivated.
If you need help turning JavaScript On, click here.
This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: Stern review_2007, "the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year" if we start to take strong action now and if we target a stabilisation between 500 and 550ppm CO2e therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006a, vi) "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting", Key and LAM conventions start here with the main claim "prompt and strong action is clearly warranted" ... "to avoid the worst impacts of climate change", if "CBA was developed to evaluate well–defined smallscale projects," and if "even at such a project level there is often scepticism relating to the necessary simplifications and assumptions," then cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a questionable tool for justiying climate change policies therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Baer/ Spash, 167) cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a questionable tool for justiying climate change policies, cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a questionable tool for justiying climate change policies and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a questionable tool for justiying climate change policies, "The risks of the worst impacts of climate change can be substantially reduced if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere can be stabilised between 450 and 550ppm CO2 equivalent (CO2e)" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern, vii) "the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year" if we start to take strong action now and if we target a stabilisation between 500 and 550ppm CO2e, "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006a, vi) "prompt and strong action is clearly warranted" ... "to avoid the worst impacts of climate change", "How much society should spend on abatement depends upon climate damages. If climate change is likely to destroy our way of life, society should devote large sums of money for abatement. If the effects of climate change are mild, however, society needs to choose a more moderate path. Over a decade of research on climate impacts has determined that only the following sectors of the economy are sensitive to climate change: agriculture, forestry, water, energy, and coastal resources (Pearce 1996; IPCC 2001b). These sectors make up about 5 percent of developed country economies and between 10 and 40 percent of developing country economies." (50) supports there is no life-threatening danger at the moment, The Debate about the Stern Review and the Economics of Climate Change visualized according to the rules and conventions of Logical Argument Mapping (LAM), CBA does not take into account "non-human species, income inequality, and the distribution of rights" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Baer/ Spash, 167) cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a questionable tool for justiying climate change policies, "Delaying abatement expenditures into the future also allows society to take advantage of technical change.Although there aremanypotential ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, few of them can be adopted quickly on a large scale. Many of the most promising ideas are not yet clearly understood.Over time, however, society can learn whichmethods are effective and which are not. For example, let us assume that society can improve the effectiveness of abatement in general by 2 percent per year through technical change. That is, every year, the marginal cost of abatement falls by 2 percent. The emissions one could eliminate by spending $100 billion today would cost only $37 billion if we waited for the technology that would be available by 2050. The cost would be only $13.5 billion using the technology of 2100. Combining the advantages of technical change and delay, the present value of the abatement program would be just $5 billion in 2050 and $250 million in 2100. These are huge rewards to society from delaying abatement." (49) supports "Delaying aggressive programs into the future costs much less", if some developing countries are 80 times more effected by climate change than the developed countries, and if it is morally unnacceptable to outsource the damages resulting from climate change to the developing countries, then life-threatening effects should not be the only criterion for climate policies therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: MH) life-threatening effects should not be the only criterion for climate policies, if "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting," then "prompt and strong action is clearly warranted" ... "to avoid the worst impacts of climate change" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006a, vi) "prompt and strong action is clearly warranted" ... "to avoid the worst impacts of climate change", if the UK government and the European Commission endorsed a global average temperature increase of 2°C as a maximum, then an increase of global average temperature above 2°C poses an unacceptable risk therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens) an increase of global average temperature above 2°C poses an unacceptable risk, "even at such a project level there is often scepticism relating to the necessary simplifications and assumptions" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Baer/ Spash, 167) cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a questionable tool for justiying climate change policies, it is morally unnacceptable to outsource the damages resulting from climate change to the developing countries therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: MH) life-threatening effects should not be the only criterion for climate policies, life-threatening effects should not be the only criterion for climate policies objects if "Delaying aggressive programs into the future costs much less," and if there is no life-threatening danger at the moment, then dangerous global temperature levels can be avoided much more cost-effectively through targeting 650 to 950 ppm CO2e, cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a questionable tool for justiying climate change policies objects if "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting," then "prompt and strong action is clearly warranted" ... "to avoid the worst impacts of climate change", dangerous global temperature levels can be avoided much more cost-effectively through targeting 650 to 950 ppm CO2e defeats if "The risks of the worst impacts of climate change can be substantially reduced if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere can be stabilised between 450 and 550ppm CO2 equivalent (CO2e)" and if "Central estimates of the annual costs of achieving stabilisation between 500 and 550ppm CO2e are around 1% of global GDP, if we start to take strong action now," then "the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year" if we start to take strong action now and if we target a stabilisation between 500 and 550ppm CO2e, "Central estimates of the annual costs of achieving stabilisation between 500 and 550ppm CO2e are around 1% of global GDP, if we start to take strong action now" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern, vii) "the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year" if we start to take strong action now and if we target a stabilisation between 500 and 550ppm CO2e, "the welfare of future generations should be treated on a par with our own" (5) therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006b we should apply a low discount rate