economics

[Quantum Windbag]

Much has been said here about the cost of cutting emissions. What is the cost of failing to?

Yale Environment 360: Calculating the True Cost<br /> Of Global Climate Change

Calculating the True Cost
Of Global Climate Change
Researchers disagree about what the economic costs of climate change will be over the coming decades. But the answer to that question is fundamental in deciding how urgent it is to take action to reduce emissions.
by john carey

When climate legislation died last summer in Congress, one cause was the powerful drumbeat of claims that the bill would bring economic disaster. The legislation would amount to a massive tax hike, devastating an already crippled economy and throwing more people out of work, charged Senator James Inhofe (R-Ok) and Glenn Beck. It would be “the final nail in the coffin of the American middle class,” proclaimed an ad from the Conservative Society of America. Despite supporters’ protests that the price tag of greenhouse gas curbs would be modest, voters’ fear of hits to their pocketbooks forced even many Democrats to backpedal.

The heated argument about economic costs, however, barely touched one vitally important issue: the costs of NOT taking action on climate. What if last summer’s Russian heat wave and drought, which destroyed one third of the country’s wheat crop, or the catastrophic floods in Pakistan and China, or category 5 hurricanes like Katrina are just glimpses of future havoc from warming left unchecked? As Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, observes, “Certain events would have been extremely unlikely to have occurred without global warming, and that includes the Russian heat wave and wild fires, and the Pakistan, Chinese, and Indian floods.”

The economic costs of such disasters could make even inflated estimates of the legislation’s price tag look small, says University of California, Berkeley, economist Michael Hanemann. Yet Congress didn’t seem to care. “The question of damages from climate change never penetrated the debate in There’s a deeply rooted perception in the U.S. that the economy will suffer little damage from climate change.Washington,” Hanemann says.

I have a wonderful idea. We should force everyone to go back to horses and buggies, and eliminate any form of communication that is faster than a running horse. This won't solve the problem of flooding, but we won't have to listen to Old Rocks act like it is our fault for not rejecting modern technology.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

droughts = global warming

floods = global warming

Do you see how Global warming "science" works?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Old Rock still cannot point to one single repeatable laboratory experiment showing how a 200PPM increase in CO2 will cause flooding in Australia.

Pointing to a weather condition and saying, "LOOK! Global Warming!" is NOT science, its a joke.

Thanks for the laughs OR

Speaking of laughs?

If you can explain to us how any weather event anywhere on earth is NOT the result of the overall climatic conditions, get back to us.

They fail to understand what GLOBAL means.
They think it is only in their area or something. LIke how can global warming exist we have snow in 49 states.

I have a solid hand on "Global"

I'm still waiting for someone to show me one repeatable lab experiment that shows a rise in temperature from a 200PPM increase in CO2

 

[skookerasbil]

If the Jets lose against NE on Sunday?

Definately global warming s0ns...........

 

[skookerasbil]

Some asshole came out today with a prediction on C02 gases effects by the year 3,000!!!

Now......not for nothing but anybody who buys that needs a fcukking labotomy!!!

 

[westwall]

Much has been said here about the cost of cutting emissions. What is the cost of failing to?

Yale Environment 360: Calculating the True Cost<br /> Of Global Climate Change

Calculating the True Cost
Of Global Climate Change
Researchers disagree about what the economic costs of climate change will be over the coming decades. But the answer to that question is fundamental in deciding how urgent it is to take action to reduce emissions.
by john carey

When climate legislation died last summer in Congress, one cause was the powerful drumbeat of claims that the bill would bring economic disaster. The legislation would amount to a massive tax hike, devastating an already crippled economy and throwing more people out of work, charged Senator James Inhofe (R-Ok) and Glenn Beck. It would be &#8220;the final nail in the coffin of the American middle class,&#8221; proclaimed an ad from the Conservative Society of America. Despite supporters&#8217; protests that the price tag of greenhouse gas curbs would be modest, voters&#8217; fear of hits to their pocketbooks forced even many Democrats to backpedal.

The heated argument about economic costs, however, barely touched one vitally important issue: the costs of NOT taking action on climate. What if last summer&#8217;s Russian heat wave and drought, which destroyed one third of the country&#8217;s wheat crop, or the catastrophic floods in Pakistan and China, or category 5 hurricanes like Katrina are just glimpses of future havoc from warming left unchecked? As Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, observes, &#8220;Certain events would have been extremely unlikely to have occurred without global warming, and that includes the Russian heat wave and wild fires, and the Pakistan, Chinese, and Indian floods.&#8221;

The economic costs of such disasters could make even inflated estimates of the legislation&#8217;s price tag look small, says University of California, Berkeley, economist Michael Hanemann. Yet Congress didn&#8217;t seem to care. &#8220;The question of damages from climate change never penetrated the debate in There&#8217;s a deeply rooted perception in the U.S. that the economy will suffer little damage from climate change.Washington,&#8221; Hanemann says.

ANYTHING that quotes Trenberth is factually incorrect. He doesn't know how to add 2+2 much less figure out the patterns of the climate. One of the most incompetent and discredited climatologists out there.

 

[Old Rocks]

And of course you are equally dismissive of the Stern Report.

A couple more breadbasket hits and the whole world will realize the price of global warming.

 

[westwall]

And of course you are equally dismissive of the Stern Report.

A couple more breadbasket hits and the whole world will realize the price of global warming.

No, it won't. You silly people have been predicting the end of the world for hundreds of years. I just looked...it's still out there.

 

[skookerasbil]

And of course you are equally dismissive of the Stern Report.

A couple more breadbasket hits and the whole world will realize the price of global warming.

LMAO....or we can go full bore green and everybody's getting it in the pooper due to the economy getting whacked.

Stupid idiot thinks people in the Northeast can have their electric bills go from $250-$300/month to $600/month........but its not a breadbasket hit. Its called the far lefty inability to think on the margin and comprehend the necessary tradoffs of the middle class getting whacked upside of the head.

Thats the scariest thing about these fcukking k00ks. They see a movement to a green economy as a zero sum game.

For the k00ks, its a no-brainer play for a person who recieves a windfall of 5K to say, "Hey....take that 5K and buy lotto tickets.......and quit your fcukking 9-5 while you're at it."

 

[skookerasbil]

Green economy? Only those who would be real comfortable purchasing from a snake oil salesman are behind it...................

Meanwhile...........check this shit out.............



April 27, 2009
Selling the Green Economy
By Robert Samuelson

WASHINGTON -- Few things are more appealing in politics than something for nothing. As Congress begins considering anti-global warming legislation, environmentalists hold out precisely that tantalizing prospect: We can conquer global warming at virtually no cost. Here's a typical claim from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF):

"For about a dime a day (per person), we can solve climate change, invest in a clean energy future, and save billions in imported oil."

This sounds too good to be true, because it is. About four-fifths of the world's and America's energy comes from fossil fuels -- oil, coal, natural gas -- which are also the largest source of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas. The goal is to eliminate fossil fuels or suppress their CO2. The bill now being considered in the House would mandate a 42 percent decline in greenhouse emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels and an 83 percent drop by 2050.

Re-engineering the world energy system seems an almost impossible undertaking. Just consider America's energy needs in 2030, as estimated by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Compared with 2007, the United States is projected to have almost 25 percent more people (375 million), an economy about 70 percent larger ($20 trillion) and 27 percent more light-duty vehicles (294 million). Energy demand will be strong.

But the EIA also assumes greater conservation and use of renewables. From 2007 to 2030, solar power grows 18 times, wind 6 times. New cars and light trucks get 50 percent better gas mileage. Light bulbs and washing machines become more efficient. Higher energy prices discourage use; by 2030, oil is $130 a barrel in today's dollars. For all that, U.S. CO2 emissions in 2030 are projected at 6.2 billion metric tons, 4 percent higher than in 2007. As an example, solar and wind together would still supply only about 5 percent of electricity, because they expand from a tiny base.

To comply with the House bill, CO2 emissions would have to be about 3.5 billion tons. The claims of the EDF and other environmentalists that this reduction can occur cheaply rely on economic simulations by "general equilibrium" models. An Environmental Protection Agency study put the cost as low as $98 per household a year, because high energy prices are partly offset by government rebates. With 2.5 people in the average household, that's roughly 11 cents a day per person.

The trouble is that these models embody wildly unrealistic assumptions: there are no business cycles; the economy is always at "full employment"; strong growth is assumed, based on past growth rates; the economy automatically accommodates major changes -- if fossil fuel prices rise (as they would under anti-global warming laws), consumers quickly use less and new supplies of "clean energy" magically materialize.

There's no problem and costs are low, because the models say so. But the real world, of course, is different. Half the nation's electricity comes from coal. The costs of "carbon capture and sequestration" -- storing CO2 underground -- are uncertain, and if the technology can't be commercialized, coal plants will continue to emit or might need to be replaced by nuclear plants. Will Americans support a doubling or tripling of nuclear power? Could technical and construction obstacles be overcome in a timely way? Paralysis might lead to power brownouts or blackouts, which would penalize economic growth.

Countless practical difficulties would arise in trying to wean the U.S. economy from today's fossil fuels. One estimate done by economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that meeting most transportation needs in 2050 with locally produced biofuels would require "500 million acres of U.S. land, ... more than the total of current U.S. cropland." America would have to become a net food importer.

In truth, models have a dismal record of predicting major economic upheavals or their consequences. They didn't anticipate the present economic crisis. Earlier, they didn't predict the run-up in oil prices to almost $150 a barrel last year. In the 1970s, they didn't foresee runaway inflation. "General equilibrium" models can help evaluate different policy proposals by comparing them against a common baseline. But these models can't tell us how the economy will look in 10 or 20 years, because so much is assumed or ignored -- growth rates; financial and geopolitical crises; major bottlenecks; crippling inflation or unemployment.

The selling of the green economy involves much economic make-believe. Environmentalists not only maximize the dangers of global warming -- from rising sea levels to advancing tropical diseases. They also minimize the costs of dealing with it. Actually, no one involved in this debate really knows what the consequences or costs might be. All are inferred from models of uncertain reliability. Great schemes of economic and social engineering are proposed on shaky foundations of knowledge. Candor and common sense are in scarce supply.
RealClearPolitics - Selling the Green Economy

 

[Muhammed]

Much has been said here about the cost of cutting emissions. What is the cost of failing to?

I've seen no logical and reasoned argument that indicates it would cost anything. Have you? Could you provide some proof that failing to cut CO2 emmisions would cost anything without using logical fallacies and crazy speculation to back up your argument?

Of course you can't, because you are a stupid delusional dumbass with very poor critical thinking skills.

 

[Old Rocks]

What happened in Russia, Pakistan, Argentina, Uraguay, and Australia this year? How many disasters more agriculteral disasters will it take to create major starvation in the third world nations? Or do you believe that is a cost that does not count.

 

[skookerasbil]

Jesus H Christ............

Could you imagine the shit Old Rocks would be posting up if we were back in the 1930's when most of the crops in the USA were destroyed by blizzards and then the epic drought and subsequent Dust Bowl!!! The dirt storms leveled crops almost from coast to coast.

Shit would make for all kinds of gloom and doom bull crap for the k00ks were it to happen now.............could you imagine? The k00ks would be going hysterical!! Now...........they go hysterical on just regular run of the mill yearly natural disasters which have been occurring forever. Dumbasses like Old Rocks never even heard of the Dirt storms of the 1930's

 

[skookerasbil]

Led to an "agricultural depression", particularly between 1933 and 1936...............

Could you IMAGINE that lunatic shit we'd be getting from the k00k left if this happened today?? We'd be being told the fcukking world is burning up and death to all was imminent.

You see folks............the Faither environmental nutjobs pretend that there were not environmental calamities before 1990 and this is all new shit.


Funny thing is...........there are hordes who have bought into this scam hook, line and stinker.

 

[asterism]

Much has been said here about the cost of cutting emissions. What is the cost of failing to?

Yale Environment 360: Calculating the True Cost<br /> Of Global Climate Change

Calculating the True Cost
Of Global Climate Change
Researchers disagree about what the economic costs of climate change will be over the coming decades. But the answer to that question is fundamental in deciding how urgent it is to take action to reduce emissions.
by john carey

When climate legislation died last summer in Congress, one cause was the powerful drumbeat of claims that the bill would bring economic disaster. The legislation would amount to a massive tax hike, devastating an already crippled economy and throwing more people out of work, charged Senator James Inhofe (R-Ok) and Glenn Beck. It would be &#8220;the final nail in the coffin of the American middle class,&#8221; proclaimed an ad from the Conservative Society of America. Despite supporters&#8217; protests that the price tag of greenhouse gas curbs would be modest, voters&#8217; fear of hits to their pocketbooks forced even many Democrats to backpedal.

The heated argument about economic costs, however, barely touched one vitally important issue: the costs of NOT taking action on climate. What if last summer&#8217;s Russian heat wave and drought, which destroyed one third of the country&#8217;s wheat crop, or the catastrophic floods in Pakistan and China, or category 5 hurricanes like Katrina are just glimpses of future havoc from warming left unchecked? As Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, observes, &#8220;Certain events would have been extremely unlikely to have occurred without global warming, and that includes the Russian heat wave and wild fires, and the Pakistan, Chinese, and Indian floods.&#8221;

The economic costs of such disasters could make even inflated estimates of the legislation&#8217;s price tag look small, says University of California, Berkeley, economist Michael Hanemann. Yet Congress didn&#8217;t seem to care. &#8220;The question of damages from climate change never penetrated the debate in There&#8217;s a deeply rooted perception in the U.S. that the economy will suffer little damage from climate change.Washington,&#8221; Hanemann says.

I don't think you are qualified to discuss economics since you tell most everyone that disagrees with you they don't understand science.

 

[asterism]

Sure, and just continue laughing as you get the bill for your groceries. There are going to be a lot of people right here in this nation that are going to find the continued increase in the cost of food due to extreme weather events no laughing matter.

Are you actually equating Climate and Weather?

 

[Old Rocks]

Much has been said here about the cost of cutting emissions. What is the cost of failing to?

Yale Environment 360: Calculating the True Cost<br /> Of Global Climate Change

Calculating the True Cost
Of Global Climate Change
Researchers disagree about what the economic costs of climate change will be over the coming decades. But the answer to that question is fundamental in deciding how urgent it is to take action to reduce emissions.
by john carey

When climate legislation died last summer in Congress, one cause was the powerful drumbeat of claims that the bill would bring economic disaster. The legislation would amount to a massive tax hike, devastating an already crippled economy and throwing more people out of work, charged Senator James Inhofe (R-Ok) and Glenn Beck. It would be “the final nail in the coffin of the American middle class,” proclaimed an ad from the Conservative Society of America. Despite supporters’ protests that the price tag of greenhouse gas curbs would be modest, voters’ fear of hits to their pocketbooks forced even many Democrats to backpedal.

The heated argument about economic costs, however, barely touched one vitally important issue: the costs of NOT taking action on climate. What if last summer’s Russian heat wave and drought, which destroyed one third of the country’s wheat crop, or the catastrophic floods in Pakistan and China, or category 5 hurricanes like Katrina are just glimpses of future havoc from warming left unchecked? As Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, observes, “Certain events would have been extremely unlikely to have occurred without global warming, and that includes the Russian heat wave and wild fires, and the Pakistan, Chinese, and Indian floods.”

The economic costs of such disasters could make even inflated estimates of the legislation’s price tag look small, says University of California, Berkeley, economist Michael Hanemann. Yet Congress didn’t seem to care. “The question of damages from climate change never penetrated the debate in There’s a deeply rooted perception in the U.S. that the economy will suffer little damage from climate change.Washington,” Hanemann says.

I don't think you are qualified to discuss economics since you tell most everyone that disagrees with you they don't understand science.

The people at Yale wrote this article, and economists in Britian wrote the Stern Report.

 

[westwall]

What happened in Russia, Pakistan, Argentina, Uraguay, and Australia this year? How many disasters more agriculteral disasters will it take to create major starvation in the third world nations? Or do you believe that is a cost that does not count.

Whatever it was it wasn't GW, your side even said so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What happened in Russia, Pakistan, Argentina, Uraguay, and Australia this year? How many disasters more agriculteral disasters will it take to create major starvation in the third world nations? Or do you believe that is a cost that does not count.

Join me in the call for abolishing subsidies for ethanol, and the federal requirement to use it in our vehicles. That will prove your concern is actually about food, and not mere political posturing about something else.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Much has been said here about the cost of cutting emissions. What is the cost of failing to?

Yale Environment 360: Calculating the True Cost<br /> Of Global Climate Change

Calculating the True Cost
Of Global Climate Change
Researchers disagree about what the economic costs of climate change will be over the coming decades. But the answer to that question is fundamental in deciding how urgent it is to take action to reduce emissions.
by john carey

When climate legislation died last summer in Congress, one cause was the powerful drumbeat of claims that the bill would bring economic disaster. The legislation would amount to a massive tax hike, devastating an already crippled economy and throwing more people out of work, charged Senator James Inhofe (R-Ok) and Glenn Beck. It would be “the final nail in the coffin of the American middle class,” proclaimed an ad from the Conservative Society of America. Despite supporters’ protests that the price tag of greenhouse gas curbs would be modest, voters’ fear of hits to their pocketbooks forced even many Democrats to backpedal.

The heated argument about economic costs, however, barely touched one vitally important issue: the costs of NOT taking action on climate. What if last summer’s Russian heat wave and drought, which destroyed one third of the country’s wheat crop, or the catastrophic floods in Pakistan and China, or category 5 hurricanes like Katrina are just glimpses of future havoc from warming left unchecked? As Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, observes, “Certain events would have been extremely unlikely to have occurred without global warming, and that includes the Russian heat wave and wild fires, and the Pakistan, Chinese, and Indian floods.”

The economic costs of such disasters could make even inflated estimates of the legislation’s price tag look small, says University of California, Berkeley, economist Michael Hanemann. Yet Congress didn’t seem to care. “The question of damages from climate change never penetrated the debate in There’s a deeply rooted perception in the U.S. that the economy will suffer little damage from climate change.Washington,” Hanemann says.

I don't think you are qualified to discuss economics since you tell most everyone that disagrees with you they don't understand science.

The people at Yale wrote this article, and economists in Britian wrote the Stern Report.

And the diots like you are making things worse.