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: Cost-of-action, 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 therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Mendel- sohn 2008) dangerous global temperature levels can be avoided much more cost-effectively through targeting 650 to 950 ppm CO2e, developing countries are much more effected by climate change than the developed countries therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: MH) life-threatening effects should not be the only criterion for climate policies, "Generally, poor countries, and poor people in any given country, suffer the most, notwithstanding that the rich countries are responsible for the bulk of past emissions." (Stern 2006b, 28) supports developing countries are much more effected by climate change than the developed countries, 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, "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, "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, 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, this calculation is based on the assumption that mitigation costs are equally distributed all over the globe. Differen- ces between poor and rich countries, however, should be reflected in the distribution of mitigation costs (Baer- Spash, 181-182) objects "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", "Developing countries will be particularly badly hit, for three reasons: their geography; their stronger dependence on agriculture; and because with their fewer resources comes greater vulnerability." (Stern 2006b, 29) supports developing countries are much more effected by climate change than the developed countries, if any target higher than 550ppm CO2e "would substantially increase risks of very harmful impacts but would only reduce the expected costs of mitigation by comparatively little. Anything lower [than 450ppm CO2e] would impose very high adjustment costs in the near term for relatively small gains and might not even be feasible, not least because of past delays in taking strong action," then we should target a "stabilisation somewhere within the range 450 - 550ppm CO2e." therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006g) we should target a "stabilisation some- where within the range 450 - 550ppm CO2e." (284), an increase of global average temperature above 2°C poses an unacceptable risk therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Baer/ Spash, 168) a target of 500 to 550ppm CO2e is not sufficient to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, any target higher than 550ppm CO2e "would substantially increase risks of very harmful impacts but would only reduce the expected costs of mitigation by comparatively little. Anything lower [than 450ppm CO2e] would impose very high adjustment costs in the near term for relatively small gains and might not even be feasible, not least because of past delays in taking strong action." therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006g) we should target a "stabilisation some- where within the range 450 - 550ppm CO2e." (284), "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), "If our emissions limits are too lax, more people will die from climate harm; if they are too strict, our economies will grow more slowly and some will have to consume a bit less than otherwise." (184) objects (Baer- Spash) if any target higher than 550ppm CO2e "would substantially increase risks of very harmful impacts but would only reduce the expected costs of mitigation by comparatively little. Anything lower [than 450ppm CO2e] would impose very high adjustment costs in the near term for relatively small gains and might not even be feasible, not least because of past delays in taking strong action," then we should target a "stabilisation somewhere within the range 450 - 550ppm CO2e.", the target of climate policies should be "measured in CO2 equivalent," not in "global temperature change," because "observations of atmospheric con- centration allow more rapid feedback to policy settings" (290) defeats (Stern 2006g) a target of 500 to 550ppm CO2e "means effectively accepting global average temperature increases above 2°C", 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, "Delaying aggressive programs into the future costs much less" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Mendel- sohn 2008) dangerous global temperature levels can be avoided much more cost-effectively through targeting 650 to 950 ppm CO2e, if a target of 500 to 550ppm CO2e "means effectively accepting global average temperature increases above 2°C," and if an increase of global average temperature above 2°C poses an unacceptable risk, then a target of 500 to 550ppm CO2e is not sufficient to avoid the worst impacts of climate change therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Baer/ Spash, 168) a target of 500 to 550ppm CO2e is not sufficient to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, click on the small, bent arrow at the bottom right of this text box to get back to the Stern Review's main argumentation start here "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