Welcome to Resources
Studies
The Real Climate Threat to Developing Countries — Early, Deep Cuts in EmissionsDecember 2007 — A study by World Growth.
Parties to the UNFCCC will meet in Bali in December 2007 to craft a fresh, global strategy to address climate change. In the lead up to that meeting, a case is being made that unless dramatic action is taken to address climate change, the world’s developing nations will be the ones to suffer most. There is no sound economic basis for this argument. In fact, the reverse is the case. If the world’s nations act precipitately to reduce emissions, in the process increasing energy prices and reducing global economic growth, developing countries will pay the highest price. The study explores the importance of balancing implementation of climate change goals with economic development strategies and practices.
Click here to read the rest of the World Growth report Click here to read the Executive Summary
Technologies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions — Strategic OutlookNovember 2007 – A study by World Growth.
This strategic review outlines the considerable scope that exists to accelerate the rate of technological progress in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The review of outlook and prospects encompass the technologies involved in increasing energy efficiency, capturing and storing emissions, reducing the carbon-intensity of the energy mix, and reducing emissions from productive processes other than energy consumption. The study also explores the wide range of voluntary initiatives by both government and the private sector. These initiatives are directed at the development and commercialization of technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions world-wide.
Click here to read the rest of the World Growth reportClick here to read the Executive Summary
Building a Pro-Development Global Strategy on Climate ChangeAugust 2007 – A study by Alan Oxley, Chairman of World Growth and former Chairman of the GATT.
The study proposes a “Multi-Track” process that would allow countries to develop more customized strategies to reduce emissions while preserving economic development programs and progress toward eliminating poverty.
The “Multi-Track” strategy would allow for each nation to develop a strategy to tackle climate change that best suits it, giving nations more flexibility to reach emission reductions through a variety of strategies. This could include Kyoto-styled mandatory cuts, adopting new technologies, improving efficient energy consumption, or any combination of approaches.
Click here to read the rest of Oxley's reportClick here to read the Executive Summary
Economic Effects of Intellectual Property-Intensive Manufacuring in the United StatesJuly 2007 – A study by Dr. Robert Shapiro, former Undersecretary of Commerce to President Clinton.
The study finds that which finds that two-thirds of the value of America’s large businesses springs from intellectual property (IP), especially patents and trademarks.
In addition, Dr. Shapiro and co-author Nam Pham calculate the concrete economic benefits of IP to the U.S. economy and find that IP-intensive jobs produce greater value added per employee, pay higher average wages, and have stronger records in job creation than those that are less IP-intensive.
Click here to read the rest of Shapiro’s report
MAKE TRADE FREEHow the Doha Round can reduce poverty
November 2005 – A study by Alan Oxley, Chairman of World Growth and former Chairman of the GATT.
"It is fashionable to discredit “free” trade because it is not “fair”. Grave issues are obscured with word play like this. Open markets are the only tool that been have been effective at dramatically reducing poverty. Free trade created them.
The suggestion this is not ‘”fair” is callous. It sneers at governments which have labored to provide prosperity for its citizens. It seeks to deny one of greatest contributions of the twentieth century to human history: to cut by half the share of the world’s people living in poverty.
Poverty persists because not enough economies are open. Mistaken or misguided, “fair” trade would close them further and keep more people poor. That is why trade should be made free, not “fair”.
Click here to read the rest of Oxley's report