President Bush’s recent speech addressing climate change was met with derision internationally. One of his excuses for a go-slow approach is the estimated cost of converting the US economy to a low-carbon diet. Such fiscal cautiousness is of course one of Bush’s most erratic virtues, consistently absent when it comes to tax cuts and the spiraling cost of the war on Iraq. Yet in the wake of Bush’s non-action, an eye opening new report draws a stark link between something he’s happy to pay for (the war) and another he says is too expensive (the carbon problem): they’re about equal.
The analysis by Price of Oil, a left leaning non-profit, points out that “total US spending on the Iraq war could cover all of the global investments in renewable power generation that are needed between now and 2030 in order to halt current warming trends.” Further, the operations of the war — from transporting troops and goods, releases from munitions, to the high CO2 emissions released to make concrete to rebuild bombed-out buildings -– are enormous in their own right, equal in size to the annual output about an eighth all US vehicles. If totted up along side national emissions, war-related emissions would fall between New Zealand and Cuba. “The war each year emits more than 60% of all countries on the planet.” Find out more here, http://priceofoil.org/climateofwar/
What do you think is the best way to use these funds?
BusinessWeek correspondents John Carey and Mark Scott, cover the green scene, keeping on top of the business aspects of energy, the environment and climate change, as well as the technologies, policies, markets and people that are shaping how the earth's resources will be used in the century ahead.