ndmckinney|net

Economist.com this week is reporting that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts the cost to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to a “safeish” level to be around 0.1% of GDP. Much of the solution, according to the Economist, is to simply improve efficiency in a number of areas, such as in business lighting and energy systems, solutions which have no cost to the consumer or taxpayer. The costs of non-fossil fuels power generation is falling dramatically, and gas-sipping technology for automobiles (sans the hybrid car fad) is readily available.

With the most costly targets rising to the level of an economic rounding error on the national economy, why is it that the more conservative governments are refusing to approach the solution? Perhaps the uncertainty in the models give polticians an excuse not to take action for fear of being wrong. Perhaps it is simply the strong lobby of the petroleum industry who is unwilling to alter their current business model. Whatever the source of the resistance, the political problem is far more difficult to overcome than the technical one.

But even the Economist, a tradtional source of liberal economic policy and opponent to governmental regulation, suggests that the solution is both laudable and feesible. While the models are uncertan, the IPCC reports that the costs are in the same sphere as of the current carbon-trading scheme, a system that, the Economist notes, “has not bankrupted the European economy so far.”

The evidence is growing that action is both necessary and feasible. The last major step is convincing the politicians that it necessary and appropraite.

The crazy Dutch want to use refrigerators as thermal sinks (and therefore electrical sinks) to help manage 50,000 Megawatt-hours of energy.

Seventh Circuit Judge and University of Chicago law professor Richard Posner writes that the future losses of delaying climate change outweigh the present value of cleaning up the problem.

In other words, solving this problem makes sound economic sense.

It doesn’t look like I’m going to get winter her in Holland. I’m pretty happy about that, actually. Global warming has its upside.

The downside, of course, is that Holland is on average 15 feet below sea level. If when the ice sheets melt, I’m pretty much screwed if I’m still here.

Sheep Poo Paper: Made from 100% recycled materials!
[via BBC News]

EDIT: I wanted to add the image, too. I thought it was just hilarious.