With the economic recession in full swing around the globe, countries who have previously pledged to specific climate goals are finding themselves backs-to-the-wall when it comes to paying for these programs.

Now, scientists from Germany and the Netherlands report that these difficult targets may be easier to achieve than previously supposed, once the initial investments are made.

Like renovating a beautiful, old house, the initial costs will be high to prevent complete collapse. Beyond that, the costs moderate, and provide visible returns on a dollar-by-dollar basis.

It's a threshold effect, says lead author Michiel Schaeffer of Wageningen University in the Netherlands, whose study was published in the December 23^rd edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

"In a sense," notes Schaeffer. "Our paper is bad news: doing a bit is hardly effective. But it gets easier once the world gets going."

The fear of governments, that long-term costs will gain a momentum and become too expensive, is unwarranted, say Schaeffer and other experts.

The scientific consensus, to which 190 countries have agreed at the recent G8 Summit, is that carbon dioxide (CO2) levels should be held at 450 parts-per-million (ppm). This would limit rising global temperatures attributed to anthropogenic climate change to 2 degrees (Celsius) above pre-Industrial levels, and would prevent catastrophic climate change. In order to meet this goal, scientists estimate greenhouse gas emissions like CO2 need to be cut 50 percent by 2050.

Those embroiled in the current global recession have become understandably uncomfortable with such goals, but the study suggests that an investment of a mere two percent of gross domestic product (GDP) can achieve the desired effect. This is comparable to the money the EU currently spends on environmental policies anyway, according to Schaeffer.

Again, though, it's a threshold effect. Spending 0.5 percent of the world's GDP would provide a 10-percent chance of achieving the warming goal (2 Celsius); spending a full one percent delivers a 40-percent chance. Spending the full two percent would bring the world close to complete temperature stabilization.

"Our work suggests that spending larger amounts of money to control carbon dioxide levels or temperatures skewed by climate change may prove worthwhile to a government or a corporation," Schaeffer noted.

Like most "structural" investments, the early returns would not be very visible, but there is a certain comfort in knowing that the roof is solid, and the foundation sound, even if one can't always see it.  It's either that or abandon the house, and mankind doesn't have another planet to move to.

Related Reading:
Solving Economic Woes and Environmental Conundrums: Get on the Bus
Diversity and Disagreement Within the Environmental Community

Image Credits:
Taiga.net
Dustylens.com