Davos and Global Warming

It is not surprising that the main topic of conversation here at the World Economic Forum in Davos is the economic downturn. But that is not all people are talking about. Global warming has become a central theme here this year.

I came here two years ago, and while there were many panels on climate change then, it was still considered a sort of add-on. This time around, creating a new energy future is increasingly viewed as a key solution for confronting the recession, not just global warming.

Yesterday, I heard Chinese Premiere Wen Jiabao give a a sober assessment of the Chinese economy and what the government is trying to do to address the downturn. Wen is committed to an economic future that addresses climate, energy, and environmental issues.

He spoke about the need to advance clean air technologies and capture and sequester carbon dioxide pollution. And like the U.S. stimulus package that just passed, Wen Jiabao said China has energy efficiency and environmental protections embedded in its economic stimulus package.

The cynical rule of thumb is that the will to strengthen environmental protections dissolves as soon as the economy hits a downturn. The conversations at Davos reveal a far more complex reality.

Yes, passing binding limits on global warming pollution will be challenging now that national governments must tend to urgent financial needs. But leaders are beginning to recognize that the path to economic stability leads right through clean energy investments. Global warming solutions are a fast-track, not a detour, to prosperity.

When Davos founder Klaus Schwab introduced both Wen and Putin, he addressed climate change explicitly. To me, it was yet another signal that economic health, climate stability, and world leadership are inextricably linked.

The post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog.

Comments

[StopGlobalWarmingBeVegan]

Solution is here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ol_6Ju3oYI

[sheila]

so, if they keep talking about "sequestering carbon," why do some people insist that destroying millions and millions of acres of a highly-effective carbon sequestration ecosystem (the Mojave) for Industrial Wind and Solar and GHG-spewing powerlines is a good idea? clearly, the best plan is to leave the Mojave to do the work it is intended to do, and ramp up the cleaner, cheaper, democracy-promoting ROOFTOP SOLAR.

If anyone tries to tell you "we need it all," or that "rooftop solar isn't enough," follow the money trail and you will find them invested in Big Solar, Big Wind and/or Big Transmission, and that's all you need to know - they want to kill the planet to increase their personal profits. Several prominent spokespeople claiming to be environmentalists are heavily invested in these deadly projects.

Check out the current issue of The Nation. Craig Rose makes it clear that rooftop solar is cheaper than remote solar, debunking the last of the mercenaries' myths. we are about to be victims of the greatest swindle since the Louisiana Purchase, only this time it's the Greenwashers who are perpetrating...

[DashRIPRockIII]

All Scientific theories should be subject to debate. Only Flat-Earthers think it's acceptable to declare that your side has a consensus and the debate is over.

The truth is that very little in the science arena is truly settled. If you'd like a little balance in your scientific information diet, please click on the following link:

http://www.hootervillegazette.com/videos.html

If you'd like the names of a few thousand qualified scientists who disagree with global warming, please click on this link:

http://www.hootervillegazette.com/globalwarming.html

Sincerely,
Dash RIPROCK III

[BrettnCalgary]

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.realclimate.org/

My links beat your links, they actually work.

[curiousasheck]

These guys have been meeting over there since 1971 supposedly getting ahead of the curve in fixing our problems.

What we got instead is a mess.

[wreckinball]

Global Warming Pollution as in CO2? If global warming is settled science then someone explain to me how temperatures have gone down in the last year yet CO2 emissions are up. Anyone who has ever taken chemistry knows that if a theory is true say x+y=z then it is always true. Not just when politically convenient. So if x= our atmosphere and y=CO2 then we add CO2 the temperature should go up every time. What's going on with the global cooling? Could it be that CO2 being a weak greenhouse gas may possibly not have much affect at all on climate after all?

[BrettnCalgary]

Why don't we let the climate scientists help you out?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

[ScreenName05]

Global warming and cap and trade are the most serious mistake the left has made in a long time. Carbon emissions are an un-calculated cost of doing business. Business will never agree to include the cost until they are made to. Governments are just playing their game with cap and trade. Tax the hell out of them until they stop polluting. That is the only real solution. They don't care if the world sinks below the seas, they care about next months profits. To get their attention you have to hit them in the head with a brick. Tax them, and put the CEOs in jail if they don't comply. The rest of us would like for there to be somewhere for our grand kids to live in 50 years.