As the change progresses it will have a significant impact on all sectors, governments, and eventually, all people. Governments will take steps to mitigate (slow the progression). This will result in lifestyle changes, and in business new risks and opportunities. Governments will also take measures to assist their citizens and businesses in adaptation to the changes that will take place no matter how serious the mitigation efforts are.
Also, if you are looking for grants or working with large investors doing risk analysis, they are looking for this.
Answer number 2:assuming governments do not address rapid climate change, or do not do so in a scientifically based manner.
Adaptation will still be necessary. Absent rigorous mitigation, it will in the later part of the century be even more crucial.
If governments do not address mitigation, large investors doing risk assessment will still be looking for this.
Answer number 3: I do not believe rapid climate change is happening/I do not believe we are causing the change/People I work with do not react will to the phrases “climate change” or “Global warming”/etc
If you are looking for grants or large investors doing risk analysis, it is wise to appear your world view is science based, even if it is not :)
Energy planning.
The current dominate energy sources “fossil fuels” are finite (only renewable over geologic time scales). Anything finite, runs out. As scarcity (or scarcity is perceived) develops, prices rise, and conflict increases. Since fossil fuel use results in release of carbon to the atmosphere (no one argues about THAT), Using “climate change” tools ( see bibliography at http://www3.uwsuper.edu/sustainability/Rapid_Climate_Change_Energy_Strategy.htm )
Allows you to measure the “thing in itself”, not a secondary thing, like price or cost. This provides better data/tracking & tighter outcomes. Cost/price of energy is subject to many more variables.
Besides, (for those that do accept science) as many economists now say, the current rapid climate change is the biggest “market failure” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure ) in history. Why use the analytic methods that contributed to the problem in the first place, when you can measure/plan etc. with the thing in itself? Use the tools, and call it something else more palatable.
Oh, yeah, security.
For those concerned about U.S. security, or think militarily.
Dependence on fossil fuels means a long supply line for our economy. Those who break their addiction will have more choices, ie. The ability to maneuver. Dependency on a distant energy source makes you reactive and defensive in strategy, handing initiative to those who are not dependent, giving them the ability to maneuver. In doing this you surrender options, tempo, and direction to an enemy.
Answer Number 3: What about Clean Coal?
A really neat marketing phrase, and marketing campaign Created by the Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) in 2000.
Posts
