Economic consequences of combating climate change

[CAS138]

Assuming that climate change is indeed anthropomorphic and occurring, do you believe that we should take urgent action to curb green house gas emissions? These types of environmental policies would harm economic growth, so is it worth it during a period of economic struggle? Another thing that we have to consider is if such policies would even have an impact, or if we'd be sacrificing economic growth for nothing, increasing unemployment and poverty for no good reason. I say this because no matter what we do, emissions in countries like China and India will continue to increase. Also, do you think that we should invest significantly in green technologies, during a period when our national debt continues to expand at such an alarming pace? If you do not believe that the government should impose strict environmental regulations or invest in green technologies, what alternatives would you suggest to solve this problem?

 

[skookerasbil]

Assuming that climate change is indeed anthropomorphic and occurring, do you believe that we should take urgent action to curb green house gas emissions? These types of environmental policies would harm economic growth, so is it worth it during a period of economic struggle? Another thing that we have to consider is if such policies would even have an impact, or if we'd be sacrificing economic growth for nothing, increasing unemployment and poverty for no good reason. I say this because no matter what we do, emissions in countries like China and India will continue to increase. Also, do you think that we should invest significantly in green technologies, during a period when our national debt continues to expand at such an alarming pace? If you do not believe that the government should impose strict environmental regulations or invest in green technologies, what alternatives would you suggest to solve this problem?

Renewable energy will continue to be a fringe market for exactly those reasons. Only the environmental OC's dont get it.......which is why I always say, nobody cares about the science.

 

[Grandma]

Even if there were no effect whatsoever on the climate, as a Rust Belt resident I know that breathing dirty air is a health hazard. And the filthy air from China blows over here just like a Fukashima cloud.

It is expensive to replace polluting exhausts and convert to cleaner energy sources, but it's not prohibitively expensive. A few corporate weasels might lose some of their multimillion-dollar profits for a couple of years - that's why so little is being done.

 

[Mr. H.]

It seems that the hydrocarbon industries are doing something right.
Since 1970, a 210% increase in GDP, 170% increase in highway miles driven, population up 51%, energy consumption up 44%....

Aggregate emissions DOWN 71%.

Policy to combat Climate Change would tank the GDP while reducing aggregate emissions by how much? A few more percentage points? Is it worth it folks?

 

[Wry Catcher]

It seems that the hydrocarbon industries are doing something right.
Since 1970, a 210% increase in GDP, 170% increase in highway miles driven, population up 51%, energy consumption up 44%....

Aggregate emissions DOWN 71%.

Policy to combat Climate Change would tank the GDP while reducing aggregate emissions by how much? A few more percentage points? Is it worth it folks?

Emissions are down not a result of Industrial care and concern for the environment. It was done because acid rain fell, rivers burned and smog was killing every living thing. China is now facing the same issues we did 50 years or more ago, and has begun to change its ways. We should lead, only the greed which once objected to unleaded gas, seat belts and air bags has not been put to rest and greed continues to slow progress by bribing elected officials who are supposed to represent real People, not corporations.

 

[Grandma]

Would it tank the economy if homes and businesses were better insulated, thus using less fuel for heat?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Would it tank the economy if homes and businesses were better insulated, thus using less fuel for heat?

Nope. Careful though, ideas like that will cause skookerasbil to call you a leftist, commie, socialist unreal American.

 

[polarbear]

Would it tank the economy if homes and businesses were better insulated, thus using less fuel for heat?

"Better"? How ?
I don`t know what kind of building construction codes they have where you live, but in Canada you can`t put a building on the market unless it conforms to the code which also states that all walls roofs and windows must have a minimum insulation factor of R40.
With the standard lumber dimensions residential buildings are constructed from you won`t get a better R factor just by stuffing more glass wool into the voids.
Or would you rather go back to asbestos ? As far as heat transfer was concerned it was "better"
Adhering also to the fire regulations what kind of "better insulation" do you suggest we should use?

Let`s assume you just invented one, got it approved and tested as "better". The construction industry would be all over you to keep them supplied.
No legislation or tax subsidies would be needed. Supply would hardly be able to keep up with demand
Nobody would get "tanked" except for big government that wants to micro-manage your life right down to your household bills and consumption while setting the sorriest example themselves.

 

[polarbear]

It seems that the hydrocarbon industries are doing something right.
Since 1970, a 210% increase in GDP, 170% increase in highway miles driven, population up 51%, energy consumption up 44%....

Aggregate emissions DOWN 71%.

Policy to combat Climate Change would tank the GDP while reducing aggregate emissions by how much? A few more percentage points? Is it worth it folks?

Emissions are down not a result of Industrial care and concern for the environment. It was done because acid rain fell, rivers burned and smog was killing every living thing. China is now facing the same issues we did 50 years or more ago, and has begun to change its ways. We should lead, only the greed which once objected to unleaded gas, seat belts and air bags has not been put to rest and greed continues to slow progress by bribing elected officials who are supposed to represent real People, not corporations.

Again we have the typical litany of half truths and exaggerations.
"Rivers burned"...aside from a fire on the Cuyahoga river which other rivers were burning? A fire on a river first morphed to an entire river burning and then to "burning rivers".The industry that did pollute this river with their effluents no longer do so, but the river remains to be one of the most polluted rivers in North America because it is still used as a sewer for non-industrial effluent , sewage and all sorts of urban run-off.
So quit blaming the industry unless you quit producing human waste and go live like a biblical hermit somewhere else.
Tetra ethyl lead became obsolete because of hydro fining technology and that had nothing to do with you or any other planet saver. It had everything to do with higher yields.
Motor sport & racing developed seat belts and most of the other safety features you benefit from, such as crumple zones and a highly resistant passenger compartment. The government you love so much had nothing to do with any of that either. The fact that you do have to wear a seat belt was a direct result of lobbying from the evil capitalist- private insurance companies left wingers like you despise so much.
And as for acid rain...how acid was it ?
Have you checked the acidity of rain water lately ?
I got news for you. In most places it`s got a pH of 6.2...no different than what it used to be outside large cities and it`s going to remain acid unless you can find a way to stop volcanic eruptions.
And China, they are not facing these issues just now, that`s the way communist party dictatorships have always been. You should have seen the mess we discovered when communist East Germany went defunct.
You found out only just now !
It`s been like this everywhere extreme lefties held power. As soon as the ex-German "DEMOCRATIC" citizens could vote in the evil capitalist German Republic that cleaned up their mess they formed the "Green Party" and stifle industry and progress ever since...unless it is "centrally planned" as it was when they made a complete mess of it. As if any communist country would follow the lead of an ideological foe. We have been leading ever since Marx & Engels wrote their left crap-trap. We western "conservatives" have been leading in democratic principles, human rights , freedom of speech and all kinds of things. They have not followed any leads except when it comes to stealing technology that profits them and they are not that dumb to delude themselves that "green technology" will benefit their cause, but they are acutely aware how it can cripple the competition.

 

[Saigon]

At the risk of mentioning the obvious - what is the cost of NOT combating climate change?

Catastrophic, that's what.

There is a lot of money to be made in moving towards the new economy, and countries less fixated on politics are doing very well right now, selling tidal energy tubines, wind mills and solar panels. The US is a long way behind on this, and is losing business because of the closed-minded neanderthals we see on these threads.

 

[editec]

Economic consequences of combating climate change

Clearly this hydrocarbon-driven world economy is going to take a SERIOUS HIT if the solution to climate weirding demands that we reduce our use of hydrocarbons.

OTOH, the economy isn't going to thrive if the world is constantly dealing with natural disasters, stemming from climate weirding either.

I do not think there's a safe glidepath from the economy we have today, to a greener economy.

Greener economies (at least in transition from a hydrocarbon economy) are NOT as productive.

I see no short term solution to this problem.

 

[Old Rocks]

No short term solutions at all, and this is what we face, economically;

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Stern Review Report

Quite possibly this is far too optimistic.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The best thing people can do is to spot posting dire ManMade Global Climate Warming Change!!!!! on the Internet

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Clearly, even the IPCC admits Climate Change is a scam to redistribute wealth

 

[skookerasbil]

Economic concerns are never concerns to the committed left. They dont matter. The committed left never ask the question, "At what cost?". It is irrelevant to these people.

Fortunately, it is relevant to the rest of the world......which is why renewable energy is laughable, was laughable and will be laughable. Why do you think every energy projection out 3 decades from now still have renewables as a fringe energy market? Because the majority of investors know it is going to continue to be fringe. Like any market, there will be a few profiteers, which is what keeps it afloat. But lets face it.....without government subsidies, the renewables market would totally collapse.

Why?

Because to most of the world.....costs matter.

 

[pjnlsn]

Assuming that climate change is indeed anthropomorphic and occurring, do you believe that we should take urgent action to curb green house gas emissions? These types of environmental policies would harm economic growth, so is it worth it during a period of economic struggle? Another thing that we have to consider is if such policies would even have an impact, or if we'd be sacrificing economic growth for nothing, increasing unemployment and poverty for no good reason. I say this because no matter what we do, emissions in countries like China and India will continue to increase. Also, do you think that we should invest significantly in green technologies, during a period when our national debt continues to expand at such an alarming pace? If you do not believe that the government should impose strict environmental regulations or invest in green technologies, what alternatives would you suggest to solve this problem?

I think it's a bit silly to talk about the impacts of any particular solution, when a lot of people don't even recognize that there is climate change, and most don't recognize that people are involved.

Offhand, global warming is an effect of both natural processes and human industry. But the reason people are concerned is that it's entirely possible that human activities could accelerate existing trends until a mild disaster occurs. A lot of people talk about CO2 emissions, and indeed, CO2 is highly persistent. If enough is present in the atmosphere to cause harm over some time period, it won't disperse for centuries, as per the properties of the gas.

Just a general statement. Personally, I find this issue a lot simpler than many make it. In particular, talking about largely undescribed solutions to a not totally described problem is inherently difficult, for little gain.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

At the risk of mentioning the obvious - what is the cost of NOT combating climate change?

Catastrophic, that's what.

There is a lot of money to be made in moving towards the new economy, and countries less fixated on politics are doing very well right now, selling tidal energy tubines, wind mills and solar panels. The US is a long way behind on this, and is losing business because of the closed-minded neanderthals we see on these threads.

How do you combat "Climate change" on planet Earth?

You sound like you're from some far advanced civilization

 

[Saigon]

The best thing people can do is to spot posting dire ManMade Global Climate Warming Change!!!!! on the Internet

This post really says a lot avout what climate denial is these days - it's stupid, it's illiterate, and it has nothing to do with science.

 

[Saigon]

How do you combat "Climate change" on planet Earth?

You sound like you're from some far advanced civilization

The same way the ozone hole was combatted.