Lorents Lorentsen: All countries will have to join up and work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Lorents Lorentsen is an economist with the OECD, which is 30 countries, including the U.S., whose stated goal is to promote economic stability and democracy among both rich and poor nations. Lorentsen spoke about climate change.
Lorents Lorentsen: The important and very difficult issue to deal with is who is going to take action, where is this action going to take place, and who is going to pay for it.
Lorentsen looks to the U.S. for leadership on climate issues.
Lorents Lorentsen: There’s no doubt that the US could do more to reduce its own greenhouse gases by increasing the prices of fossil fuels, either by using taxes or trading systems, as is used in many states already.
Money from a tax on carbon – or a cap and trade system – he said, could be used to invest in renewable energy technologies – not only for the U.S., but also for India and China.
Lorents Lorentsen: The point here is that many of the cheapest options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are in China and India. But you couldn’t expect them to do that unless it is paid by the richer countries, at least in part.
Lorentsen said he believes fuel subsidies should be lowered or eliminated.
Lorents Lorentsen: If you, for instance, look at the efficiency of cars in the US, they’re using on average double as much gasoline as the European cars. And the reason for that, simply, is that the prices of gasoline in the US is very much lower than in Europe.
Lorentsen spoke at the March 2009 America’s Climate Choices summit in Washington DC.
Our thanks to:
Lorents Lorentsen
Director
Environment Directorate
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)
Paris, France
We hear the Copenhagen Climate Conference will be a failure. No binding international agreement will be made. The last best hope for humanity to sensibly address climate destabilization has been turned into a steppingstone to nowhere.
A colossal tragedy is in the making. Father Profit wins again and again. Mother Nature loses.
Now for some good news: “THE(only)GAME(in town)” is in the bottom half of the ninth inning and, therefore, not yet over for Mother Nature.
It is a MYTH that reducing emissions will cause an economic catastrophe.
The economic BENEFITS of moving away from fossil fuels has been proven in countries such as Sweden and others. Even locally, even one household, sees economic benefits each and every time they replace fossil fuels with renewables.
What we keep hearing in mainstream media is the fearmongering by fossil fuel friendly folks, such as Canada’s Environment Minister Jim Prentice last week in Calgary. We need to get this message out that it is not true that reducing emissions will ruin the economy.
What reducing emissions WILL cost is a lot of money up front, but all that money will be returned many times over. The only difference is about 3 or 4 years more for that return as compared to fossil fuels, but once we turn that corner, about 7 years after installing renewable infrastructure, we will be RICH in “abundant clean energy”.
made my way to your blog from yahoo and and am glad i found it, hope you keep up the good work