Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Yes I know, puns are lame.

I was wondering if anyone had seen the recent news about The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. In a nutshell it's economic risk analysis of global warming by Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, commissioned by the U.K. government.

The conclusions drawn were that if left unchecked the economic costs of climate change would be up to 20 times greater than the cost incurred in measures to slow it now, arguing that up to 20% of global GDP could be wiped out because of climate change.

So does anyone think a $ signs approach, will change the major polluting governments' (e.g. the U.S., Australia) stances on climate change? My bet is on "No." But just thought I'd ask.

And does this change anyone here's views on climate change?

(P.S. If there's another thread that this can be merged into then by all means.)

Nothing will change...Most people don't care to look far enough ahead, and making money right now is probably more important then making money in the future. Perhaps that a few smaller country's will start working to change things even more now. But the real superpowers and greatest causes of climate change in the world won't.

I think the movement is actually gaining some decent momentum as of late. I wouldn't be surprised if some serious measures are introduced soon.

There are definitely more and more commercials advertising global warming awareness and ways to make even small contributions to changing it, which can only be a good thing.

Whilst I'm not concerned about it to the degree of some people, I do think this is a good thing, because it's obviously a concern. Regardless of if it's as bad as people say or not.

-AC

John Howard has just said the government is dedicated $42 billion to funding 6 projects to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.

Of course, he mentions nothing about what these projects entail