LONDON - Will the spending needed to prevent global warming cost the world more than just sitting back, or even enjoying the possible financial benefits of a hotter planet?
Economists are divided over that cold financial calculation in the week ahead of a major report on the issue to be presented to ministers of the world's leading nations.
Some want action now to curb climate-changing emissions, saying that will cost little today but more if we delay, while others urge a slower approach, saying uncontrolled climate change will cost little or nothing in the short-term.
The report by UK government scientist Nicholas Stern to the G8 nations and major emerging countries including China, India and Brazil, may favor the first argument, according to some sources who contributed to it.
Also in that camp is Nobel laureate and former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz.
"The net cost (of taking action) is even potentially negative but certainly is not very significant," said Stiglitz.
Financial benefits, or negative costs, occur from energy efficiency savings.
"We need to start doing something now," Stiglitz said. "There is a risk of very rapid climate change."
Robert Mendelsohn, professor at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, argues that such negative costs may still be less than the benefits.
He sees a net global warming bonus in the near-term, as higher farming yields in northern countries offsets damage elsewhere, especially in Africa.

The main financial headlines for the day:
Cisco live 2009 website is down and nobody can access the site for the latest in...


Effective and Affordable Press Release Distribution Service