The Start-Up Cost Of Climate Change

Climate change is one of today’s most hotly debated topic. Scientists for many decades have made supposed claims that current energy creation and reliance on fossil fuels will lead to inevitable changes to the planet. Today, climate change denial is still a popular to most of the world despite the mounds of evidence to support that it exists. The climate change issue suffers from being mismanaged by various parties through focusing on the wrong issues and the lack of true commitment from the general public, according to Sandra Steingraber.

Since being on the “green” side seems to make the politicians popular, many of them “stand up” to global warming. So environmentalists, among of whom are some politicians, hide or just ignore the facts regarding global warming and its true aspects.

The world economy is a very complex system; in the system harmful externalities disrupt capital flows and determine economic productivity. Most notable of these externalities is inadvertent global warming. Spending towards research and regulation of climate change at both the national and international level are very important in determining current and future business trends. Economists and scientists worldwide continuously debate the pros and cons of emissions reduction and what consequences can quickly follow. Though many have different views on the issue, all can agree that the immediate and long term effects of climate change have become an economic matter of paramount importance. The sweeping impact from climate change will have important fiscal, financial, and macroeconomic ramifications that influence global commerce standards.

As a kid who has cared about nature his entire life, and an avid modern environmentalist for four years and counting, this issue has been at the center of my psyche for quite some time. I have seen public perspective on this issue change before my eyes. From the original rejection of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth movie on “global warming” to personally marching alongside 300,000 people in our nation's capital to raise awareness on climate change. However, despite all of these avenues the issue is still spoken about as this distant idea that eventually will be a disaster. Many politicians and news networks speak of the need for slow implementation of policies and programs to right our environmental wrongs. The best way to paraphrase the common narrative of this issue would be to say, climate change is going to happen down the road, it will probably be bad and trying to fix it in the near future would be a good idea. That weak call to action shoves climate change onto the long to-do list of the leaders of our world. Not only does it not create the urgency needed to actually curb the effects of our environmental ignorance, but it does not accurately describe the threat of a changing climate. Treating this like a political issue will not allow for the rigorous changes needed to address such a problem in the timely manner that is required.

This year we have seen more electric and hybrid vehicle startups than ever before.” (Morrison) Nearly everyone recognizes the benefits of the shift, both in terms of how it would help our environment in the long term, but also the economic impact it would have, (reduced gas costs, lower electric and other utilities bills... etc.) But still, many large companies work to impede the progress in favor of maintaining our dependence on fossil fuels. The American Petroleum institute has worked with many oil industry protection companies to stymie the renewable energy movement, even in some cases, “posing as environmentalist groups in order to attract the support of environmentalists while simultaneously pushing their anti-renewable agenda.” (Blankenhorn) Many of these companies striving against renewable energy also support the building of the Keystone pipeline, using the justification that the building of the pipeline would lower gas prices. But what they fail to acknowledge is the basic economic fallacy of this, “Fossil energy prices are not going to fall. The more you remove carbon-based resources from the ground, the more it costs to get more.”

Unfortunately, several members of Congress, including supporters of the fossil fuel industry and those who refute the overwhelming science behind climate change have vowed to do everything in their power to block the

During the Canadian Climate Change conference, there were many compelling arguments for both sides. On the side that wanted Canada to take immediate action, they brought up the fact that our future generations would have to suffer from the consequences of our selfish, greedy and reckless lifestyle of burning fossil fuels. Furthermore, they exaggerated the outcomes of manmade climate change and bringing up feelings of pity for the future generations because they will have to live in a polluted world that humans created. They said that if we do not take action now, there will be many jobs lost due to climate change. Although there are many jobs in the fossil fuels business, they will not continue forever because they are finite and will run

Global climate change has been an unresolved issue since the 1970’s. Despite the facts presented by scientists, the governments refuses to take action. It has been estimated that the global mean temperatures have already risen by 0.8°C and the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the temperature to rise by another 0.8°C, whereas 2°C is considered the maximum rise which the earth will be able cope without any major catastrophes (Mckibben, 2012). At the present rate of climate change we are already experiencing a shift in seasonal patterns. The governments’ inability to make strict laws regarding reduction in emission, therefore, stirs the controversy that what is stopping them and why do they refuse to do anything about it.

On the surface big business and climate change seem like fundamentally different issues, but upon deeper investigation, we can see that these issues have an underlying direct correlation. How can two ideas that are fundamentally different interact so thoroughly on one topic? Naomi Klein dedicates her work to investigate how these two issues interact, and what microcosms of our society encourage this interaction. Klein has a revelation about the issues with big businesses dominance over our society. She also suggests ways for us to change our lifestyle to be more environmentally friendly and prevent massive damages to the environment. Klein’s works have the power to change how we think about these big businesses’ presence in our society

Many of them think that, instead of switching to a fuel that pollutes marginally less than others do, it would be much better to push the development of renewable sources of energy. Continuing to develop infrastructure for nonrenewable fuels will only make it easier to put off doing so, which will have the net effect of increasing pollution beyond what it could be.

When looking at the map of states that voted against this we should devide them into those which are vulnerable to climate effects and voted against to convince them on increasing economic pressures derived from inaction in their own states and neighboring states (peer pressure). Then, with those that depend primarily in fossil fuel exploitation (coal mines, oil fields) we should work on the benefits of increase research and development of low carbon technologies within the fossil fuel industry, investment in research and development of cleaner fuels and more efficient processes can be accompanied by technology transfer tax breaks. Emphasis should be made on the fact that this newer industry will create an increasing amount of green jobs the young population could benefit from. It means shifting maintenance investment in the oil and gas industry to the development of a whole new industry that will yield high paying specialized jobs.

Most of this are not new to me, which frustrates me even more. Climate change is apparent, yet those who are at the positions to make an impact are seemingly oblivious or even in denial. I just can’t understand which financial or political gain

Since, fossil fuels have been a part of our environment for some time now, they have been the main resource we’ve needed and used to keep our country running. The truth of the matter is, since we obtain fossil fuels from plants and animals that lived millions of years ago they will soon be gone. As indicated by Eric McLamb, founder, chief executive officer, and president of the ecology communications group, “The problem is fossil fuels are nonrenewable. They are limited in supply and will one day be depleted.” People realize that the crisis of running out of fossil fuels is upon us; however, these same people are timid about moving on to renewable energy. One main reason is because individuals do not believe renewable energy is cost efficient. For instance, solar energy is known to be fairly expensive, particularly more expensive than the conventional energy used now, which makes people uncertain about changing to renewable energy.

Over the past century, the Earth has experienced a dramatic change in temperature and we need to work to reverse it. Politicians have debated the idea of climate change for years now and nothing has really been done to improve the situation. Some politicians have been exposed to the facts about climate change, while others believe in a hypothetical theory that the Earth goes through “cycles”. The government needs to stop arguing and act now, to educate the public and regulate the phenomenon of climate change, before it is too late.

Intro: This report will aim to define responsible business, in relation to the vast range of topics such as Corporate social Responsibility/Corporate Citizenship, sustainability, whilst comparing these through academia and their different meanings relating to Responsible Business. Furthermore, this report will also aim to critically analyse climate change and its effect in relation to making Business more responsible as well as the drawbacks/opportunities this holds for business. Finally, this report will exploit the relation between government and Business; identify possible barriers for businesses through government via academic views and evidential impacts on businesses and how government supports business to create a more sustainable world, through incentives such as the climate change Act 2008.