Doing nothing about climate change will save us huge amounts, right? Wrong.

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Cap and trade will cost us between $100 and $200 billion dollars a year. That sounds really, really bad. Do nothing, the climate deniers say. Look at all the money we'll save. Not.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jQ_IXP6DZV_pEhouxIuT4oztHM6Q

I'm including the entire article, since it's so compelling.

Something to keep in mind when reading this article: World GDP in 2008 was approximately $60 trillion. Meaning that the cost of doing nothing - of just paying to adapt to climate changes and suffering the losses in economic output that a warmer planet will cause, rather than paying to mitigate/prevent the changes - will be between $2 and $6 trillion a year in reduced GDP growth, and that assumes that world GDP would not otherwise have grown at all. Obviously, the world economy will in fact grow over the next 90 years, meaning the the cumulative loss in growth if we do nothing about climate change will be much, much higher than the $2 to $6 trillion a year figure.

Climate change to cost trillions, say economists

PARIS — Estimates vary widely on the costs of damage from climate change, easing these impacts and taming the carbon gas stoking the problem, but economists agree the bill is likely to be in the trillions of dollars.

Figures depend on different forecasts for greenhouse-gas emissions and the timeline for reaching them. In addition, key variables remain sketchy.

How will rainfall, snowfall, storm frequency and ocean levels look a few decades from now? How will they affect a specific country or region? And how fast will nations introduce low-carbon technologies, carbon taxes and other policies that alter energy use?

Despite these uncertainties, economists share a broad consensus: climate change will ultimately cost thousands of billions of dollars, a tab that keeps rising as more carbon enters the atmosphere.

"The cost of climate impacts goes up with the delay on emissions mitigation," said Sam Fankhauser of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics (LSE).

"On the cost of adaptation, there's a timing issue. For instance, there's no point building sea walls now if the sea levels are only going to rise gradually over the next 50 years. But we do know that costs of adaptation will go up non-linearly, in other words exponentially, with the degree of warming that we have."

Following is a snapshot of the main items on the tab.

-- IMPACTS: Warming of between two to three degrees Celsius (3.6-5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial times would inflict a permanent loss in global world output of up to three percent, according to the 2006 Stern Review, authored by British economist Nicholas Stern.

But this would rise to an average of five to 10 percent loss of GDP with warming of five to six C (9.0 F), with poor countries suffering costs "in excess" of 10 percent of GDP.

On current trends, Earth is headed for an average increase of 4 C (7.2 F) this century, to which 0.74 C (1.33 F) of warming from the 20th century must be added, according to the so-called A1F1 emissions scenario of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).


-- MITIGATION: Action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases focuses on more efficient use of coal, oil and gas and a switch to clean renewable sources.

The European Union (EU) and others have set the target of limiting overall warming to 2C (3.6 F), which entails stabilising carbon concentrations in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million (ppm).

Attaining this would require 10.5 trillion dollars in energy-related investment by 2030, which would be additional to money committed under existing policies, the International Energy Agency (IEA) says.

The largest increase -- 4.7 trillion -- is in transport, mainly to purchase more efficient, but more expensive, vehicles.

Investment to make buildings more energy-efficient would cost an additional 2.5 trillion dollars by 2030 while a switch to clean or low-carbon power generation would notch up another 1.7 trillion.

-- ADAPTATION: Estimates of the cost of protecting against water stress, flood, extreme storms, rising sea levels and other ills vary widely, from four billion a year to 109 billion annually over the next 20 years.

A widely-regarded estimate put forward in 2007 by the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) suggested the bill by 2030 could be between 49 and 171 billion dollars annually, of which 27-66 billion would be needed in developing countries.

The figure is based on the need to climate-proof infrastructure; help agriculture; protect water supplies; defend coastal zones; and treat malnutrition, diarrhoea and malaria, which are among the diseases likely to be amplified by climate change.

But this is only half, or even just a third, of the likely cost, as it does not factor in protecting ecosystems, energy, tourism, manufacturing and mining, according to a paper published in August by Martin Parry of Imperial College London.


By way of comparison, the EU estimates developing nations will need 100 billion euros (150 billion dollars) per year by 2020, for both adaptation and mitigation.

Trillions spent in mitigation and adaptation will have an economic benefit and create new jobs, although exactly how far they will ease the cost of impacts is -- once more -- hard to calculate, say economists.
 
Last edited:

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
If one fear approach doesn't convert people to your beliefs.... try again from a different angle.

hahahaha, my thoughts exactly. The fear mongering over climate change hasn't convinced the population to buy into the eco-nut mentality, so now they try a different tactic. This is complete BS.

Don't get me wrong, reducing pollution is a good thing, no matter how you look at it, but the eco-wackos are just pushing their zany agenda.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,962
140
106
Cap and trade will cost us between $100 and $200 billion dollars a year. That sounds really, really bad. Do nothing, the climate deniers say. Look at all the money we'll save. Not.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jQ_IXP6DZV_pEhouxIuT4oztHM6Q

I'm including the entire article, since it's so compelling.

Something to keep in mind when reading this article: World GDP in 2008 was approximately $60 trillion. Meaning that the cost of doing nothing - of just paying to adapt to climate changes and suffering the losses in economic output that a warmer planet will cause, rather than paying to mitigate/prevent the changes - will be between $2 and $6 trillion a year in reduced GDP growth, and that assumes that world GDP would not otherwise have grown at all. Obviously, the world economy will in fact grow over the next 90 years, meaning the the cumulative loss in growth if we do nothing about climate change will be much, much higher than the $2 to $6 trillion a year figure.


thats all based on alarmist BS juggled data from fraud disguised as research. How come algore (al gore) won't defend his eco-KOOK position in a debate??
 

brblx

Diamond Member
Mar 23, 2009
5,499
2
0
forget climate change and evolution, i'm waiting for the conservatives to try and refute gravity.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Ah, yes, climate-denial at its best. Don't address the science. Don't address the economics. Just insist over and over that's it's all fraud; it's all alarmism; we're all safe and snug in our beds.

Let's use this approach to all science: Computers don't exist. Modern medicine doesn't exist. Flat-panel televisions don't exit. Moon-landings don't exist. Mankind arose in the garden of Eden.

La la la la la la la (stop talking science to me) la la la la la la . . . . .
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Cap and trade will cost us between $100 and $200 billion dollars a year. That sounds really, really bad. Do nothing, the climate deniers say. Look at all the money we'll save. Not.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jQ_IXP6DZV_pEhouxIuT4oztHM6Q

I'm including the entire article, since it's so compelling.

Something to keep in mind when reading this article: World GDP in 2008 was approximately $60 trillion. Meaning that the cost of doing nothing - of just paying to adapt to climate changes and suffering the losses in economic output that a warmer planet will cause, rather than paying to mitigate/prevent the changes - will be between $2 and $6 trillion a year in reduced GDP growth, and that assumes that world GDP would not otherwise have grown at all. Obviously, the world economy will in fact grow over the next 90 years, meaning the the cumulative loss in growth if we do nothing about climate change will be much, much higher than the $2 to $6 trillion a year figure.

1.) There is no historical evidence that would indicate that mankind has ever, or now has, the ability to co-operate at a global scale on anything.

The only thing even close would be the growth of the religion of Islam.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Ah, yes, climate-denial at its best. Don't address the science. Don't address the economics. Just insist over and over that's it's all fraud; it's all alarmism; we're all safe and snug in our beds.

Let's use this approach to all science: Computers don't exist. Modern medicine doesn't exist. Flat-panel televisions don't exit. Moon-landings don't exist. Mankind arose in the garden of Eden.

La la la la la la la (stop talking science to me) la la la la la la . . . . .

What scientific evidence shows that the climate has ever shifted 8.5 F warmer in a 100 year period?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,486
6,034
126
1.) There is no historical evidence that would indicate that mankind has ever, or now has, the ability to co-operate at a global scale on anything.

The only thing even close would be the growth of the religion of Islam.

Ya, so we should just not try. Sorry folks, we failed. :(
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
One side says a problem doesn't exist and the other believes taxing a problem is the best solution.

Egad, we haven't a chance.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,486
6,034
126
One side says a problem doesn't exist and the other believes taxing a problem is the best solution.

Egad, we haven't a chance.

C&T is proven to not only reduce Emissions, but to do it efficiently and spur Innovation. People opposed are just looking at it the wrong way IMO.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
C&T is proven to not only reduce Emissions, but to do it efficiently and spur Innovation. People opposed are just looking at it the wrong way IMO.


Nothing is proven. The answer is to directly fund research for non carbon based energy sources and make the results public domain. No more oil shortages, the ME becomes irrelevant, and the increase in global standards of living doesn't mean we live in smog.

This will never happen, although we have the means.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Don't address the science.

I guess you don't read much news.

The simply fact that the 'green' movement doesn't promote nuclear power shows that saving the planet isn't their true agenda....at least for the leaders of the 'green' movement.

Then again, go 'green' and make Al Gore the first 'green' billionaire so he can buy an even larger GulfStream....oh wait, he has the largest one right now....
 
Last edited:

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,486
6,034
126
Nothing is proven. The answer is to directly fund research for non carbon based energy sources and make the results public domain. No more oil shortages, the ME becomes irrelevant, and the increase in global standards of living doesn't mean we live in smog.

This will never happen, although we have the means.

wut? C&T is not a new thing.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
wut? C&T is not a new thing.

The point is that on a global scale you have to have everyone playing by the same rules. You don't. China will continue to mine coal as long as it benefits it's economy.

The only solution is to develop a viable alternative. You do that by research. Private industries with the capital won't because they would create competition for their own products, and if they did then they would want to maximize the profits by patent. That means mine baby, mine.

If on the other hand we funded MIT and others like them with the caveat that whoever creates things of value is handsomely compensated however the results are published public domain we have a methodology to create a long term solution. China (and I use them as an example because they are ever energy hungry, but it could be India) will take the cheap way out.

If the goal is to be fossil fuel independent regardless of whether it's to be free of imports or concerns of global warming matters not. It's in our best interest to use it as a source of raw material rather than burning it.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,486
6,034
126
The point is that on a global scale you have to have everyone playing by the same rules. You don't. China will continue to mine coal as long as it benefits it's economy.

The only solution is to develop a viable alternative. You do that by research. Private industries with the capital won't because they would create competition for their own products, and if they did then they would want to maximize the profits by patent. That means mine baby, mine.

If on the other hand we funded MIT and others like them with the caveat that whoever creates things of value is handsomely compensated however the results are published public domain we have a methodology to create a long term solution. China (and I use them as an example because they are ever energy hungry, but it could be India) will take the cheap way out.

If the goal is to be fossil fuel independent regardless of whether it's to be free of imports or concerns of global warming matters not. It's in our best interest to use it as a source of raw material rather than burning it.

..and all that is exactly where a C&T system comes in to accomplish that goal.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
..and all that is exactly where a C&T system comes in to accomplish that goal.

Wait, we're going to take a hundred billion dollars and have a Manhattan type project to get us off of fossil fuels and make that information public domain? Cool!
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,486
6,034
126
Wait, we're going to take a hundred billion dollars and have a Manhattan type project to get us off of fossil fuels and make that information public domain? Cool!

No. All that $$ is going to be used by the Private Sector to find solutions.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34160921/ns/us_news-environment


Global warming problem has been solved. Well maybe not solved, but certainly the data set must be changed now, which would give us a whole different picture, wouldn't it?

This vow on emmisions, along with the vow Obama made on behalf of the usa should make it a 1000 year climate change instead of a 100 year one, wouldn't it?

I'm sure that we can just plug the new numbers into our working climate change model to see how it effects THE ECONOMIC COST of everything, right?