Action costs heavily, inaction costs more

This week I attended a talk by the Renewable Energy Foundation on 'Thermo-economics' - meaning how energy links to economic debate. The presentation focused on why government renewable energy subsidies are unsustainable. However, this week's Climate Change 2014 synthesis report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sums up my feelings on the matter entirely. Making headlines such as 'rapid carbon emission cuts vital to stop severe impact of climate change' and 'fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100' the point of the report couldn't be more clear. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Our use of fossil fuels and emissions of carbon have to be seriously cut to prevent irreversible climate change on Earth. Although government subsidies may be raising the future price of household energy bills, I would personally rather pay more for energy than run out entirely. We need to prioritise our planet over our pockets. BBC news states: 'The UN said inaction would cost ''much more'' than taking the necessary action'. Cost doesn't only refer to economics. 

'Severe, widespread and irreversible impacts' is the tagline to remember from the report. The need to move away from fossil fuels and towards renewables is real and urgent. Does this outweigh the need for emerging economies to develop without restrictions, such as England during its industrial revolution? I believe so.

Although a bit off topic, the report makes an interesting read and covers a matter I think should be at the forefront of all economic and environmental debate.