A new report concludes that businesses need to adopt eco-friendly practices and 'green technology' to protect themselves against potentially costly government and EU legislation.
The report, written by consultants Deloitte, predicts that in the next decade more eco-friendly laws and policies will come into force.
These measures could include 'carbon pricing' - where companies are charged for their emissions - with tough penalties for those who fail to meet targets. Companies which are not prepared could lose money or even be forced out of business, the report's authors warn.
Meanwhile, growing consumer pressure for ethical goods and rocketing prices for non-renewable energy is strengthening the case forcompanies to 'go green'.
The report was commissioned by the city-region's economic development agency Manchester Enterprises and is titled `The Economic Impact of Climate Change'. It has been nicknamed the `Mini-Stern Report' after 2006's pioneering Stern Report on the economics of climate change.
The Mini-Stern presents a scenario where Manchester's economy loses £21bn for failure to adapt, while the north west potentially loses £72bn.
According to the report, the sectors most vulnerable are aviation, road transport, manufacturing and textiles.
The report says: "Unless it achieves significant emissions cuts, improves its resilience to climate change and leverages its assets, the Manchester city region could fall substantially short of its economic regeneration goals and targets."
However, the researchers believe Manchester stands to gain billions more if business, local and central government join forces to make the city a powerhouse for environmental technology.
Strong position
The report says the city's economy puts it in a 'strong position' to compete in global markets and develop an `international reputation', while local universities are leading the field in green research and courses.
Also, investment in transport - expected if the congestion charge is introduced - could lead to a more 'environmentally friendly and connected system'.
The report calls for the climate change agenda to be included in planning policy and urges AGMA to lobby the government for certainty about what carbon prices could be.
At the moment, businesses that spend on new technology now could lose out if carbon pricing is less than expected, while those that sit on their hands could profit by doing nothing. The authors also stress that government money could be needed to support environmental technology.
Report author Rashid Bashir, of Deloitte, said: "For businesses in Manchester and the UK to meet the requirements of forthcoming climate change legislation there is a lot more that they need to do.
"There's a need for significant investment in environmental technology and a concerted effort to unlock the potential for business opportunities stemming from the climate change agenda."
Some believe the report does not go far enough. Christian Aid `Cut the Carbon' campaign volunteer, Stephen Pennells, of Longsight, said the report `sidestepped' the effect of the growth of Manchester's aviation sector. He added: "The mini-Stern report uses a 144 month timescale (2020) - but whichever calendar we decide to use - the clock is ticking.
"Manchester is to be applauded for taking this initiative but across the city region it is time for positive responses from everyone in the political, business and community sectors."
Chris Fletcher, deputy chief executive at Greater Manchester Chamber, said: "The Mini Stern sets out to produce for Greater Manchester a compulsive case for businesses to begin to enjoy "early adaptor" benefits of controlling emissions and energy use for sound economic reasons as well as enabling businesses within the region to steal a march with new technologies and initiatives.
"Businesses are affected on their energy usage and outputs by a variety of factors. Increasing energy prices mean that reducing demand makes more sense than ever for businesses looking to reduce costs and get a competitive edge.
"There is also little doubt that over the next decade drastic legislation will begin to come in forcing businesses to comply with ever stringent guidelines. The ones that won't be as badly affected by this will definitely be those that move now and decide to take action.
"It is not just an economic issue though, we have seen evidence that companies who take responsibility for their environmental impact also gain a key advantage with in their customer's minds. The longer that business delays in taking action the more costs will increase and the harder it will get to begin to adapt and change when the law makers have their say." Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
If climate change is going to cost Manchester £21 billion over the next 12 years then there is no point pursuing the congestion charge, no one will be paying it we will all be unemployed.
Notice the real enemy here is "costly Government and EU legislation".
Climate change is a natural phenomenon which has been happening since the world had it's first atmosphere.
There's nothing we can do to change it because its nothing we are doing that is causing it.
If you go and check out any respectable climate site you'll notice that the world is currently in a cooling phase (for the last 7 years or so) and that it's predicted that this phase will last at least another 15-20 years... For this reason you'll notice that they changed the name from Global Warming to Climate change.
Polky, if we're in a cooling phase, why is it that global temperatures aren't falling...?
" Polky, if we're in a cooling phase, why is it that global temperatures aren't falling...? "
They are falling. August this year was 0.8F cooler than 10 years ago worldwide (UAH report).
Believe it or not, there's also more ice at the north pole than there was last year at this time... 13% more if you believe The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado Boulder OR 30% more if you believe The University of Illinois Cryosphere Today project.
Are you listening to Al Gore again..? You shouldn't because in the UK, an Inconvenient truth has been judged a political work (not scientific) and, as such, is not allowed to be shown in schools without first informing the children that it's factually incorrect.
What a load of rubbish.
Any conslusive proof how so-called 'climate change' is going to affect Manchester?
No.
So bugger off then you charlatans.
Perhaps we could ask China & India to 'turn it down a bit'
I often see that people are offered ways to 'pay' to off-set their 'carbon footprint' (whoever coined that phrase deserves something and I'm not think of a medal either!)
How does that work?
"Perhaps we could ask China & India to 'turn it down a bit'
I often see that people are offered ways to 'pay' to off-set their 'carbon footprint' (whoever coined that phrase deserves something and I'm not think of a medal either!)
How does that work?"
It doesn't work, simply put the 'liberal' middle-classes get to ease their guilt through offsetting their nasty 'carbons' whilst charlatans such as Gore get extremely rich off the back of it.
Some people are extremely naive & gullible - they're usually left-leaning too.
"I often see that people are offered ways to 'pay' to off-set their 'carbon footprint' (whoever coined that phrase deserves something and I'm not think of a medal either!)
How does that work? "
Al gore owns shares in a company which, when you pay them, will offset your carbon foot print... Kind of a win/win for him as he was the one who came up with the idea in the first place and championed his notion with a second rate propaganda movie.
Do they plant trees?
Polky, comparing the global temperature in August 2008 with the temperature in August 1998, or comparing Arctic ice coverage in August 2008 with August 2007 is meaningless - it's a bit like saying we're heading into an ice age because it's colder today than it was yesterday.
If you look at the global climate trends, temperatures are increasing at the rate of +0.13 degrees per decade according to that UAH website you referred to, and Arctic ice coverage is 20% less than the 1978-2000 mean according to the very same The University of Illinois Cryosphere Today project you quoted.
But then it's much easier to stick your head in the sand and hope that everything's going to turn out OK, than it is to recognise the threat and do something about it...
yet more twaddle on the buzz subject of the first decade of this century!
we're alot better now than 40 odd years ago when we where surrounded by smog!
all the government have done is make us think thea climate change is very serious so we then accept what ever new taxes, charges or changes in our way of life that they force upon us!
"But then it's much easier to stick your head in the sand and hope that everything's going to turn out OK, than it is to recognise the threat and do something about it..."
I recommend you read "Scared To Death" by Christopher Booker and Richard North before you start posting sweeping statements about the apocolypse.