How much should we pay to stop the Earth from warming? - Political Forum

Hotduck · 10-15-2007, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Science is the primary tool to understand human-caused global warming. But economic consequences of policies meant to cut greenhouse gas emissions also enter the policy debate.

Kyoto-type greenhouse gas emission cuts are expected to make little impact on the forecast rise in temperature, according to the computer simulations (which seem to give exaggerated warming trends, as discussed). One forecast, from the UK Meteorological Office, underscores the point. Without Kyoto, that model predicts a rise in globally averaged temperature of just about 1 degree Centigrade by the year 2050. Implementing Kyoto, according to that model, would result in a slightly but insignificantly lower temperature trend. The temperature rise avoided by the year 2050--the difference between the two trends--is six-hundredths of a degree. That is insignificant in the course of natural variability of the climate. Another way to look at the averted warming is that the temperature rise expected to occur by 2050 is projected to occur by 2053 if the emission cuts are enacted.

The conclusion is that one Kyoto-type cut in greenhouse gas emissions averts no meaningful temperature rise, as projected by the models. In order to avoid entirely the projected warming, British researchers estimate that 40 Kyoto-type cuts in greenhouse gas emission would be required.

The cost of implementing one Kyoto-type cut is enormous. Fossil fuels supply approximately 85 percent of energy needs in the United States; worldwide the fraction is about 80 percent. International policy discussions propose expensive solutions centered on sharp fossil fuel use cuts and a massive increase in solar and wind power. A cost-effective solution that does not stunt energy use and energy growth is to shut down coal plants, extend the licenses of the 100 nuclear power plants in the United States, and build about 800 more. However, that is not under serious discussion as a solution to what is often described as the most pressing crisis facing the earth.

Renewable energy sources like solar and wind are not only expensive but also environmentally damaging in their vast land coverage. Those renewable energy sources are not foreseen as seriously meeting projected energy and economic growth. For economic growth, fossil fuels will be relied on for the next decade or two.

The cost of engaging in one Kyoto-type greenhouse gas emission cut ranges between $100 billion and $400 billion of lost GDP annually in the United States. For comparison, consider that the Social Security Trustees estimated $407 billion was transferred to retirees in 2001. The $400 billion annual loss in GDP is approximately numerically equal to the total amount of public and private primary and secondary education spending in the United States.

A recent study from Yale University says that over the next 10 years, Kyoto-type cuts would cost about $2.7 trillion in lost GDP in the U.S.

Those costs must be increased if the target of greenhouse gas emission cuts is not one Kyoto-type agreement but 40.

Another possible target for emission cuts is the benchmark of stabilizing the atmosphere at a level of 550 parts per million of equivalent carbon dioxide concentration. That target probably will be discussed at the World Summit on sustainability in Johannesburg. Current discussions imply that developed countries like the United States would be forced to go to zero net carbon emissions by the year 2050. Beyond 2050, the United States would produce net negative carbon emissions, i.e., the United States would not only continue to emit zero net carbon, but also to begin removing carbon from the atmosphere.

In summary, little evidence supports the idea of catastrophic human-made global warming effects. Undertaking a Kyoto-type program would produce little abatement of the forecast risk, while the cost of such a program would divert resources and attention from major environmental, health, and welfare challenges.

In that regard, forecasts are made of the hypothesized impacts of projected human-made global warming effects. For example, one scenario is that hurricanes may increase because more carbon dioxide has been added to the air. This would be a serious economic impact because hurricanes are the costliest natural disaster in the U.S. But hurricanes have not increased in number or severity in the past 50 years. The cost of property damage has increased, because the cost of property has risen along with the rise in U.S. wealth--not because carbon dioxide has been added to the air.

Another scenario is that human-made global warming will see sweeping epidemics of infectious diseases like malaria in the United States. But malaria is endemic to the United States. Malaria strikes were quelled not by controlling the weather, or by controlling the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, but through increased wealth. That the United States became wealthier from fossil fuel use meant people could be protected from malaria by living inside screened or climate-controlled structures, by reducing the disease vector, mosquitoes, and by advancing medical knowledge and care. In contrast, nearly one million people die from malaria each year; many of its victims are children in Africa and other developing nations.

Diminishing the impact of natural disasters is an immediate worldwide need that rests on keeping the U.S. and world economy vibrant. Energy use, that is, fossil fuel use, helped achieve stunning progress for humankind and the environment in the 20th century. For example, life expectancy in the U.S. in the 20th century nearly doubled.

Agricultural experts estimate that technology has improved crop output. But some increase in crop growth, namely about 10 percent, may owe to the added carbon dioxide in the air, that is, the aerial fertilization effect from carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is not a toxic pollutant. It is essential to life on earth.

The latest scientific results are good news: The human influence on global climate change is small and will be slow to develop. The conclusion comes from the lack of meaningful warming trends of the low layer of air, in contradiction to the computer simulations that project a strong human effect should already be present. Those results present an opportunity to improve climate theory, computer simulations of climate, and obtain crucial measurements.

The economic consequences of not relying on science but instead on the anti-scientific Precautionary Principle, are considerable, and are not so speculative. The economic impact of significantly cutting fossil fuel use will be hard-felt, and they will be devastating to those on fixed incomes, those in developing countries, and those on the margins of the economy.

For the next several decades, fossil fuel use is key to improving the human condition. Freed from their geologic repositories, fossil fuels have been used for many economic, health, and environmental benefits. But the environmental catastrophes that have been forecast from their use have yet to be demonstrated by their critics.

Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist at George C. Marshall Institute and co-host of TechCentralStation.com. The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of any institutions with which she is affiliated

I think one of the most underrated and little talked about things is the cost in stopping this so-called human made warming. This writer shows the impact on are economy. So my question is how much is this one degree change worth. With all the problems we face in the world is this the best way to spend are money?

And how much is too much ?

LessGovMrPrez · 10-15-2007, 11:25 PM

Well considering throwing money at climate change, doesnt change anything? We should spend ZERO.

kjhworld · 10-16-2007, 04:30 AM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessGovMrPrez

Well considering throwing money at climate change, doesnt change anything? We should spend ZERO.

How do you know that does'nt change before try?
If we use money correctly, that is realy sufficient for that.
Scientifist shall find the methods more effectively for its.
If we think of the cost of weapons inutils, or the cost of some airplanes never use well, or some stupid movies only violents/sexuals abuses,
the prices for climates will be nothings.
But we need find some the other ideas/technics for control of its.
Perhaps we can make the competition of good ideas of circumstances.

Example, one can make many air purifications for all grand cities in public systems.
(that machins exist already in small size, but why not big size and many palces?)
In korea, many family use it in house.
Some one make use down the temporature of too hot in big cities with planning of its by hiring of the sun.
Or in somewhere(which needs protect of glaces) one can use making snowing machins with soleil systems on the sky(balon) or in the land(like ski ground),
Even for all the villages can make snow with machin.(already exist!)
(they use only for movies and after then it throw down, that is not economic)
somewhere we can make the canals artificiel with the sea.
Also we can make all the system or machins for purify the water for the rivers or the seas near grand ports.
Netoyer regulery all the sea spoiled/polued by human(pubel in the sea).
Or make many building of argriculture or planitoriums in underground places like in subway/metro stations...
Anyway, the imagin can be realized by giving works all intelectural persons.
Every nations want try to find good method with times.
Now we need your imagins for protect of the earth.
If you don't have it, just help some one can make its.

[COLOR="Cyan"]First of all, all these kind of efforts for earth/world will give to us grand motivations for good! That is real good job for all.
Let's have good willing to dream world![/color]

dahermit · 10-16-2007, 10:17 AM

No money should be spent on trying to reduce the effect of human caused climate change. As long as there are humans there will be carbon and other green house gas emissions. It is a futile gesture.
Spend the money reducing the number of humans on the planet. All mankind's problems can be linked to the number of humans inhabiting the earth.

kjhworld · 10-16-2007, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahermit

. All mankind's problems can be linked to the number of humans inhabiting the earth.

So, How do you think that every nation(Not only Europeans) make to joint for the limite of population by respectly but not obliger.
(Like China, anyway they are succed to diminuation of number of populations)
More need to give to educations for the pays under developpements or having too
many populations in small land. Many asian, or African, or south american...:

My Heart is a Molotov · 10-16-2007, 03:03 PM

None. All that needs to be done if a Global Warming is indeed in play, is LESSEN THE GLOBAL WARMING. Throwing money at it won't change anything. Nostradamus says we're all gonna die in 2012 anyway.

Quote:

As long as there are humans there will be carbon and other green house gas emissions. It is a futile gesture.

True, but the problem is not carbon emmisions in general, it is that there is TOO DAMN MUCH!

kjhworld · 10-16-2007, 03:24 PM

Quote:

QUOTE=My Heart is a Molotov;93837]None. All that needs to be done if a Global Warming is indeed in play, is LESSEN THE GLOBAL WARMING. Throwing money at it won't change anything. Nostradamus says we're all gonna die in 2012 anyway.

True, but the problem is not carbon emmisions in general, it is that there is TOO DAMN MUCH!

[/quote]

Nostradamus! I don't belive that!
We will live very long well, and human should take care of the earth!
[ That is the duty of 21° centry.

LessGovMrPrez · 10-16-2007, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjhworld

How do you know that does'nt change before try?

Well first of all, you assume MAN can stop a planet from doing what it was meant to do. Second you assume that by spending money, the planet will take that bribe and stop doing what it was meant to do. Thirdly, man cannot by his own techonolgical marvels, successfully change global climate on any scale whatsoever.

FRYandBENDER · 10-16-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahermit

No money should be spent on trying to reduce the effect of human caused climate change. As long as there are humans there will be carbon and other green house gas emissions. It is a futile gesture.
Spend the money reducing the number of humans on the planet. All mankind's problems can be linked to the number of humans inhabiting the earth.

He dahermit, long time no see. Welcome back.

kjhworld · 10-16-2007, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessGovMrPrez

Well first of all, you assume MAN can stop a planet from doing what it was meant to do. Second you assume that by spending money, the planet will take that bribe and stop doing what it was meant to do. Thirdly, man cannot by his own techonolgical marvels, successfully change global climate on any scale whatsoever.

1) The sciences are sufficiently developped for handling somehow to do good.
and we don't need stop planet, just can make better than heavy polutions.

2) Your concept of "spending money", if you don't do, with that money what do you want spend it? Is it only for the cost of wars? Or do you have something very important for using of it? For what?
Why some group always say samething for money?

Also, it's not of your moneys! What's the aim of your desire "spending money"?

3) Man cannot change still now, but never tried at all.
So, if it needs that because the something important reasons we have for protecting, that means this action must obliger for human not for amusing.
And we find something wrong in our climate, and we need the attentions for it. It does'nt meaning we must changing the global climate, but the using of money for have reasons of world peace and good for circumstances of world.
What is more important than that?