<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for The Stern report on climate change]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by Kit Stolz</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/climate-change-economics/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:40:23 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/climate-change-economics/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>C02e</strong></p><p>Funny! </p><p>
One technical note: Could you talk about the concept of C02e (mentioned in the second quote) a little? I have read about it in the context of cap-and-trade programs, but I'm not sure I understand how today's CO2 ppm concentrations translate into CO2equivalent. </p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>C02e</strong></p><p>Funny! </p><p>
One technical note: Could you talk about the concept of C02e (mentioned in the second quote) a little? I have read about it in the context of cap-and-trade programs, but I'm not sure I understand how today's CO2 ppm concentrations translate into CO2equivalent. </p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by Danothebaldyheid</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/climate-change-economics/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:51:30 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/climate-change-economics/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Britain</strong></p><p>One other technical note - it is the government of Britain, not just England! I note this as a proud Scot (it may seem irrelevant to many, but is quite important to the Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh).</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Britain</strong></p><p>One other technical note - it is the government of Britain, not just England! I note this as a proud Scot (it may seem irrelevant to many, but is quite important to the Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh).</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by adrianne</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/climate-change-economics/</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 05:29:47 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/climate-change-economics/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>CO2 emissions<p>To compare the emission of CO2 from US and EU (and other main polluters) you can see the first graph on <a href="http://www.1ocean-1climate.com/climate_changes_today.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.1ocean-1climate.com/climate_changes_today.php. Also, since EU and US are in discussion, on the same site you can see how each of them contributed to the climate change (in the meaning of provoquing it).<br>
</br></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>CO2 emissions<p>To compare the emission of CO2 from US and EU (and other main polluters) you can see the first graph on <a href="http://www.1ocean-1climate.com/climate_changes_today.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.1ocean-1climate.com/climate_changes_today.php. Also, since EU and US are in discussion, on the same site you can see how each of them contributed to the climate change (in the meaning of provoquing it).<br>
</br></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #4 by caniscandida</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/climate-change-economics/</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 05:54:14 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/climate-change-economics/4</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>hurray the Celts!</strong></p><p>Actually, Dano, Coby Beck originally says "British government."</p><p>
Here is a cute, moving paragraph by Niall Ferguson, in the New York Review of Books, November 30, p. 28, in connexion with the miserable British withdrawal from the continent at Dunkirk:<br>
&lt;&lt;<br>
As in World War I, it was often the Scottish Highland regiments -- among them the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders, the last battalion to wear their kilts in combat -- who got the dirtiest jobs and fought the hardest. &nbsp;In the roll of honor, pride of place belongs to the 51st Highland Division, whose hard lot it was not to be evacuated but "at all costs" to keep fighting the Germans in the area south of the Somme. &nbsp;Only when completely surrounded at Saint-Vale'ry-en-Caux did their commander give the order to "hoist that bloody [white] flag on the church tower." &nbsp;Even then, some of his men were loath to stop shooting. &nbsp;"Not fucking likely, you yellow bastard!" was the furious reaction of one soldier when ordered to lay down his arms by an officer of the Kensington Regiment. &nbsp;Evidence like this makes me almost believe the apocryphal story about the two Highlanders watching the evacuation of the beaches at Dunkirk. &nbsp;"Aye, Jock," says one to the other, "if the English surrender, it'll be a long war."<br>
&gt;&gt;

<p>Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!</p></br></br></br></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>hurray the Celts!</strong></p><p>Actually, Dano, Coby Beck originally says "British government."</p><p>
Here is a cute, moving paragraph by Niall Ferguson, in the New York Review of Books, November 30, p. 28, in connexion with the miserable British withdrawal from the continent at Dunkirk:<br>
&lt;&lt;<br>
As in World War I, it was often the Scottish Highland regiments -- among them the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders, the last battalion to wear their kilts in combat -- who got the dirtiest jobs and fought the hardest. &nbsp;In the roll of honor, pride of place belongs to the 51st Highland Division, whose hard lot it was not to be evacuated but "at all costs" to keep fighting the Germans in the area south of the Somme. &nbsp;Only when completely surrounded at Saint-Vale'ry-en-Caux did their commander give the order to "hoist that bloody [white] flag on the church tower." &nbsp;Even then, some of his men were loath to stop shooting. &nbsp;"Not fucking likely, you yellow bastard!" was the furious reaction of one soldier when ordered to lay down his arms by an officer of the Kensington Regiment. &nbsp;Evidence like this makes me almost believe the apocryphal story about the two Highlanders watching the evacuation of the beaches at Dunkirk. &nbsp;"Aye, Jock," says one to the other, "if the English surrender, it'll be a long war."<br>
&gt;&gt;

<p>Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!</p></br></br></br></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #5 by CamTheCat</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/climate-change-economics/</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 06 Jan 2007 05:42:56 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/climate-change-economics/5</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Climate Change &amp; Economics<p>I've made a lost on this subject at my blog just the other day.<p>
<a href="http://greencameron.blogspot.com/2007/01/climate-change-economics.html" rel="nofollow">http://greencameron.blogspot.com/2007/01/climate-change-e...<p>
Strangely, the 'Green Bloggers' blogroll links my post here (maybe because the title is the same) so I thought I'd check it out and link from here to my blog post on this subject too.</p></a></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Climate Change &amp; Economics<p>I've made a lost on this subject at my blog just the other day.<p>
<a href="http://greencameron.blogspot.com/2007/01/climate-change-economics.html" rel="nofollow">http://greencameron.blogspot.com/2007/01/climate-change-e...<p>
Strangely, the 'Green Bloggers' blogroll links my post here (maybe because the title is the same) so I thought I'd check it out and link from here to my blog post on this subject too.</p></a></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #6 by caractacus</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/climate-change-economics/</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 06 Jan 2007 06:59:27 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/climate-change-economics/6</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>The Problem with Stern<p>There's a big problem with the Stern Review though, and it's probably something to do with him being well within the neo-liberal economic consensus. <p>
In Ch. 13 talking about emissions targets, he very quickly rejects 450ppm CO2e as being too difficult and too likely to adversely impact economic growth. He then tries to make a case for 550ppm CO2e by demonstrating the many potential opportunities for getting a good return on investment, e.g. by using the World Bank/IMF to impose climate change insurance and Monsanto's latest GMOs on the parts of the developing world who are likely to be in really serious trouble if we're going to aim for 550ppm. <p>
Sure, 550ppm CO2e is better than nothing, but lets not lose sight of the fact that he's aiming for this in order that growth can continue, and by accepting his approach we're condemning large numbers of people in the developing world to starve or become refugees. We're also in with a russian roulette players chance on 550ppm, +3C etc of kicking off various kinds of runaway climate change according to some of the material that was presented at last year's Hadley Centre conference. <p>
<a href="http://www.stabilisation2005.com/programme.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.stabilisation2005.com/programme.html</a></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>The Problem with Stern<p>There's a big problem with the Stern Review though, and it's probably something to do with him being well within the neo-liberal economic consensus. <p>
In Ch. 13 talking about emissions targets, he very quickly rejects 450ppm CO2e as being too difficult and too likely to adversely impact economic growth. He then tries to make a case for 550ppm CO2e by demonstrating the many potential opportunities for getting a good return on investment, e.g. by using the World Bank/IMF to impose climate change insurance and Monsanto's latest GMOs on the parts of the developing world who are likely to be in really serious trouble if we're going to aim for 550ppm. <p>
Sure, 550ppm CO2e is better than nothing, but lets not lose sight of the fact that he's aiming for this in order that growth can continue, and by accepting his approach we're condemning large numbers of people in the developing world to starve or become refugees. We're also in with a russian roulette players chance on 550ppm, +3C etc of kicking off various kinds of runaway climate change according to some of the material that was presented at last year's Hadley Centre conference. <p>
<a href="http://www.stabilisation2005.com/programme.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.stabilisation2005.com/programme.html</a></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>