REPORT: The Cost of Ignoring Climate Change Is $20 Trillion A Year
REPORT: The Cost of Ignoring Climate Change Is $20 Trillion A Year
Global warming deniers frequently fall back on the following argument: even if global warming is real, it’s too expensive to mitigate. For example, the National Review’s Jason Steorts said it would require “economic castration.” Such arguments, however, ignore the costs of inaction.
A new study by the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University reveals the severe economic consequences of doing nothing. From the report:
[I]f nothing is done to restrain greenhouse gas emissions, annual economic damages could reach US$20 trillion by 2100 (expressed in U.S. dollars at 2002 prices), or 6 to 8 percent of global economic output at that time (Kemfert 2005). The same study found that immediate adoption of active climate protection policies could limit the temperature increase to 2° and eliminate more than half of the damages…If, however, climate protection efforts do not begin until 2025, the same model estimates that it will be impossible to limit warming to 2° by 2100 — and climate protection in general will be more expensive, the later it starts.
Even that estimate “necessarily omit[s] some of the most troubling potential consequences of climate change.” Importantly, the study found that the cost of mitigation is about one quarter the cost of doing nothing.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
107 Responses to “REPORT: The Cost of Ignoring Climate Change Is $20 Trillion A Year”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Cost of Global Warming: $20 trillion
Screwing the world in a mad power grab: Priceless
Goper's Lament (Hard To Be A Republican)
October 13th, 2006 at 3:18 pmThe neocons will find a different reason to not believe besides money.
October 13th, 2006 at 3:21 pmif we took $20 trillion dollars, we could come up with an alternative fuel source in like five seconds. Whatever happened to the tokamak reactor projects? Seems like as good a project to sink all our money into as any.
October 13th, 2006 at 3:21 pm[...] Original post by Judd Read More… [...]
October 13th, 2006 at 3:25 pmThe neocons will find a different reason to not believe besides money.
Of course. I mean, if you are hell bent on hasting Armageddon, why worry about global warming?
October 13th, 2006 at 3:27 pmCan't buy the argument that jobs will be lost if we don't do something about human contributions to climate change.
October 13th, 2006 at 3:31 pmEveryone (left alive and able) in the world will have a jobs with shovels, axes or other hand tools if we don't do something now...
Yes, but people are making money and that's the important thing. That's why big oil went out and hired big tobacco's old PR firm to say "the jury's still out" over and over.
Pulling the same tricks on the same hicks. Why not? It works!
October 13th, 2006 at 3:32 pm.
There are so many arguments against this. Look at the costs associated with Katrina, for example. The cost of not doing something is quite clear.
I believe the same arguments were made regarding emissions controls on cars: it would kill the economy! Well, that didn't happen, did it?
The frustrating aspect of this is that in most every other country, conservatives are fully behind conservation and taking care of the environment. These are moral issues, not partisan ones. I think many righties in this country are against it simply because "tree-huggers" are for it, and God-forbid they share the same air with those people. Ridiculous.
October 13th, 2006 at 3:33 pm(Correction to my previous post #6)
October 13th, 2006 at 3:37 pm"Can't but the argument that jobs will be lost if we DO something about human contributions to climate change"
There is another cost that must be considered if we are to stifle global climate change: the cost of one GOP House of Representatives, one GOP Senate, and one GOP President.
October 13th, 2006 at 3:37 pm#10....
October 13th, 2006 at 3:39 pmchump change!
Isn't he the same guy who said that global warming was a god thing?
October 13th, 2006 at 3:46 pmCan you really be "the greatest country in the world" if you have the most shit government ever? I don't think so.
October 13th, 2006 at 3:54 pm#8, good point.
October 13th, 2006 at 3:58 pmIt's the Slannitys & Limpblows of the world making up
deragatory labels like 'tree hugger' that make it so easy
for non-thinkers to justify & dismiss this as unimportant.
Environmentalists are respected everywhere but here!
Why is that?
Is it because Corporate America doesn't want anyone
telling them what to do?
Why does Corporate Citizenship trump personal? Why?
This is the problem, folks. Republicans have sold our
very souls through earmarks, deregulation & special favors
to the Corporate pigs who only consider profit worthy
of pursuit.
That's unamerican.
Look at the fact that they have already expressed concern
for China's budding labor movement. NO CHEAP LABOR!
OMG! Whatever will we do! I mean, we spent all that money
to move our mfg. over here, & now you actually want us to
pay a fair wage? If you do that, we'll move to the Mariana
Islands. At least Abramoff understood profit!
Had enough?
Are you as sick as I am of being controlled by corporate
profit motives?
VOTE BLUE IN NOVEMBER
Yeah, well, it's not the real problem, the cost. It's WHO PAYS. The polluters don't want it to be THEM. It's so much cheaper for THEM to push the problem off on the people of the future! Greed rules. Greed rules the political parties, greed rules in this culture, greed rules mankind. I have NO HOPE whatsoever that the greedy powerbrokers will EVER do anything to stop the pollution of our planet. For that reason, I expect this problem to escalate until the worst happens. I wonder if a pretty Hummer can protect the rich boys from -300 degrees fahrenheit? I don't expect to survive. I don't expect that anyone will. But I do think that before it's over, there will be some well-groomed frozen heads rolling down every Mainstreet in America.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:11 pmHow do you tree-hugging wackos explain 2 feet of snow in Buffalo, and it is only October 13th? Yeah, sounds like the Earth is heating right up. This global warming crap is voodoo science. Read the book, State of Fear. It will school you on what is REALLY happening with the earth's climate, and how human impact on the earth's environment has nothing to do with it.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:18 pmWhoa, #16 that was a really stupid question. Do your homework.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:22 pmHow do you tree-hugging wackos explain 2 feet of snow in Buffalo, and it is only October 13th? Yeah, sounds like the Earth is heating right up. This global warming crap is voodoo science. Read the book, State of Fear. It will school you on what is REALLY happening with the earth’s climate, and how human impact on the earth’s environment has nothing to do with it.
Comment by A+Real+American — October 13, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
Yeah, State of Fear written by that world famous scientist Michael Crichton. The one who knows more than all the other scientists put together.
ARA, you are truly pathetic if you believe what you just wrote.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:25 pm#17-
YOU need to do some homework. Start at
October 13th, 2006 at 4:26 pmGive it up, ARA. Only jackass morons and paid liars put any stock in Crichton or any of the other global warming deniers.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:28 pm#17-
Let me try that again.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Go to this link, and soak up some REAL science.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:30 pm#16
Wow. Global Warming means that the OVERALL temperature of the earth is rising. This rise in temperature wreaks havoc with well established weather patterns causing more extreme, unpredictable weather.
Like 2 feet of snow in Buffalo in October.
Like tornadoes in Columbus in October.
Like one hurrican season from hell followed by a harmless one.
Get it? Unpredictable....
October 13th, 2006 at 4:31 pm#17-
Here is some more.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/ten_facts_about_global_warming.htm
October 13th, 2006 at 4:31 pmSo, ARA, are you telling us that the thousands of scientific experts who agree on the general aspects of global warming laid out by the IPCC are "tree-hugging wackos"? Do you read what you write? Do you listen to your own thoughts?
Citing a single weather event in a single location on a single day to refute the science? Preposterous. Pathetic.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:32 pmAre you all interested in the Greenhouse effect, and how it has been distorted? The greenhouse effect is B.S. Read up on it here:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Don't believe the hype!
October 13th, 2006 at 4:36 pmARA, I think it is interesting the those propaganda sites you point to don't give the slightest clue as to who is behind the rubbish found there. Who are they? What are their scientific qualifications? How about a list of their peer-reviewed publications?
Lay down the crack pipe, and stop drinking the kool aid.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:37 pmWonder which GOP PAC is funding ARA's troll excursion...
I ponder....
October 13th, 2006 at 4:38 pmOh God. junkscience.com. I suppose it was inevitable. The web site of that paid liar Steven Milloy, the lawyer-lobbyist who lies on behalf of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries. No scientific qualifications there.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:38 pmWonder which GOP PAC is funding ARA’s troll excursion…
I ponder….
Comment by bobcat_grad — October 13, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
I think ARA is a freelance volunteer. Too stupid to be anything else.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:39 pmStill not convinced? Then check this out:
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
The catastrophic greenhouse effect predicted by "experts" and unrealistic computer models is erroneous. Don't get sucked into Al Gore's hysterics.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:40 pmBy the way, ARA, I read junkscience.com for comic relief. Just like I read your posts.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:41 pmI invite you to go to your local book store and look for Michael Crichton's book. There's a reason you'll find it in the FICTION section.
Just checking......do you also believe that there's really an island with dinosaurs on it? What a retard!
October 13th, 2006 at 4:41 pmPeople. All the material contained in the links I just provided is easily referenceable, and it is scientifically sound. Do some research, seriously. It is YOU who are drinking the Kool Aid.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:42 pmARA -
You won't believe Global Warming is happening. Most of us believe it is. Fine.
Next step:
Which is worse:
1. Doing something about Global Warming and then finding out it's not a real threat?
October 13th, 2006 at 4:46 pm2. Or doing nothing about it and finding out it is a real threat?
#16, I noticed awhile ago that Michael Crichton snuffed the "State of Fear" forum on his site. It's now a read-only archive, and my guess is, a sanitized one at that. Also, his Science Discussion forum allows posts about the scientific theories covered in his books, with the notable exception of State of Fear! No climate talk. Now why do you suppose he did that?
I think he knows he will live to see the day when he is disgraced by his bullshit book.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:46 pmIf you want to read a good book on this subject, pick "Global Warming and other Eco-myths". It is a great book, and provides irrefutable evidence that human-caused global warming is not only a myth, it is also an IMPOSSIBILITY.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:47 pmReal American (apparently, with lots of time on his hands):
All of your "concerns" are addressed on this website:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html#guides
It summarizes the science in layman's terms and links to the best, most current research.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:48 pmWhy is it that it's ok for the government to spend 500 billion a year on the military? No one seems to think that having to do so results in "economic castration". Yet, spending a small percentage of that on mitigating globlal warming is just simply unacceptable "economic castration". Republicans are just hypocrites on every damn issue.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:49 pmARA- what a total penis!
October 13th, 2006 at 4:50 pm#36.....who wrote the book you are referring to, Stephen King?
October 13th, 2006 at 4:50 pmI read the first quarter of "State of Fear," until I reached the part where they begin the three-card-monty science to try to disprove global warming.
I then realized that it was propaganda. Ficitional propaganda at that.
Then I tossed it in the trash.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:52 pmIt is also an IMPOSSIBILITY.
You should put your whole comment in caps, it makes it more convincing. I always go with the argument with the most use of caps lock.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:52 pmIt is a great book, and provides irrefutable evidence that human-caused global warming is not only a myth, it is also an IMPOSSIBILITY.
Comment by A+Real+American — October 13, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
ARA, your references are a joke, and so are you. Next time try consulting the National Academy of Sciences, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and thousands of qualified scientific experts, instead of fiction writers and paid lobbyist-liars.
In the meantime I suggest you return to reading World Net Daily.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:54 pmYou should put your whole comment in caps, it makes it more convincing. I always go with the argument with the most use of caps lock.
Comment by JJ — October 13, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
JJ, THANKS FOR THE TIP! ;-)
WAIT, LET"S TRY BOLD TOO!
October 13th, 2006 at 4:55 pmTo all-
I'm sorry that my use of facts is getting into the way of your inexplicable belief in the global warming myth. Please, do some research. Don't believe the hype, and think for yourselves.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:56 pmRealScientist-
COME ON, DON'T FORGET ITALICS! AND LOTS OF EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!!
October 13th, 2006 at 4:57 pmI’m sorry that my use of facts is getting into the way of your inexplicable belief in the global warming myth. Please, do some research. Don’t believe the hype, and think for yourselves.
Comment by A+Real+American — October 13, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
Projection, projection, projection....
October 13th, 2006 at 5:01 pmExcuse me for a minute. I have to jump over to Slate where I am giving some other global warming deniers and fossil fuel industry shills a beating.
October 13th, 2006 at 5:02 pmTo ARA-
I’m sorry that [your] use of fact[oid]s is getting into the way of your inexplicable belief [that] global warming [is a] myth. Please, do some research. Don’t believe the hype, and think for yoursel[f].
See - I only changed a few things, and it makes much more sense this way.
October 13th, 2006 at 5:02 pmHow bad can it be. Mid-October, blizzard conditions in Buffalo. It ought to be a crime to try to limit global warming.
October 13th, 2006 at 5:02 pmA Real Dumb American, what kind of intellect prefers to get important scientific information from an industry shill organization like CEI instead of the real scientists?
Founded in 1984, CEI is a Washington-based conservative think tank "whose research on public policy reflects the principles of free enterprise, individual liberty and limited government." CEI is at the center of the global warming misinformation campaign.
CEI has tackled tough and contentious scientific issues such as global warming, carbon dioxide and fuel-economy standards, most recently expanding into the politics of food. It has become the go-to think tank in the fight against excessive federal government regulations, supporters say. (Beyond the Theories: Think Tank Debunks Popular Myths; Audrey Hudson, May 18, 2004, Washington Times) The organization mixes free-market ideas with the anti-regulation and environmental movements, but unlike most institutes that are content just to think and speak, the CEI does not shy away from forcing action through the courts or the legislative process. CEI, among many other statements denying the seriousness of global warming, has argued that climate change would create a "milder, greener, more prosperous world" and that "Kyoto was a power grab based on deception and fear" (R. Brunet, "It Just Ain't So, Say These Reputable Scientists" Alberta Report, 10 November, v.24(48) 1997 p20-21). In addition to leading the campaign to convince the public that global warming is uncertain, CEI has weighed in on pesticide risk and endocrine disrupting chemicals - both of which pose no threat to human health, in CEI's view - and has supported regulatory "takings" measures. CEI supports eventual elimination of the Superfund and has advocated the complete privatization of the Endangered Species Act, arguing that species protection would meet the level of "demand," based on how much citizens are willing to pay for habitat preservation (CLEAR fact sheet). CEI has a long anti-environmental pedigree. CEI is a member of the State Policy Network and the Cooler Heads Coalition. CEI was a sponsor of the first Wise Use conference in 1988 and has had membership in the Get Government Off Our Backs coalition, the wise use umbrella group. CEI is also a network member of The Heritage Foundation, Alliance for America, and the anti-Endangered Species Act group, Grassroots ESA Coalition. CEI was also a co-sponsor of the 1998 NY State Property Rights Conference. With more than a $3 million annual budget, CEI is supported by both conservative foundations and corporate funding. Known corporate funders in addition to ExxonMobil include the American Petroleum Institute, Cigna Corporation, Dow Chemical, EBCO Corp, General Motors, and IBM. One of CEI's prominent funders is conservative Richard Scaife who has provided money through the Carthage and Sara Scaife Foundations. CEI is also heavily supported by the various Koch brother foundations. (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute)
October 13th, 2006 at 5:02 pm...your inexplicable belief in the global warming myth
OK, I won't explain my belief in global warming. I'll let the National Academy of Scientists explain it for me:
Scientists. They're so irrational with their inexplicable beliefs.
(BTW, these are the first two sentances from a report commissioned by Bush's White House.)
October 13th, 2006 at 5:04 pm#50 -
Hey, I'll save you some scrolling. Here's a repost of something I said earlier here:
Global Warming means that the OVERALL temperature of the earth is rising. This rise in temperature wreaks havoc with well established weather patterns causing more extreme, unpredictable weather.
Like 2 feet of snow in Buffalo in October.
Like tornadoes in Columbus in October.
Like one hurricane season from hell followed by a harmless one.
Get it? Unpredictable….
I'll follow that up with a question I asked ARA that he ignored:
1. Doing something about Global Warming and then finding out it’s not a real threat?
October 13th, 2006 at 5:06 pm2. Or doing nothing about it and finding out it is a real threat?
Scientists. They’re so irrational with their inexplicable beliefs.
Comment by JJ — October 13, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
You forgot to say that scientists are also tree-hugging wackos. Get it right next time.
October 13th, 2006 at 5:08 pmARA - You referred to your use of "facts?"
You cited a fictional book written by the same guy who wrote Jurassic Park as your main source for how we should all get "schooled" about global warming.
You do realize how ridiculous that sounds, right? Maybe it is you that should stop reading the science fiction and start thinking for yourself.
October 13th, 2006 at 5:09 pmPS -
In #53, I should have prefaced the questions with:
What's worse:
1. Doing something about Global Warming and then finding out it’s not a real threat?
October 13th, 2006 at 5:09 pm2. Or doing nothing about it and finding out it is a real threat?
#55
Wait, you mean they can't clone dinosaurs from ancient bugs found in amber?
DANG YOU, CRICHTON!!!
(You can't see me, but I shaking my fist in anger now)
October 13th, 2006 at 5:11 pmARA, you seem very big on asking people to do their own research. I ask you to do the same: collect your own weather data. Go back through the records and plot out the trends. Then please report back and we'll be happy to listen to your results.
October 13th, 2006 at 5:17 pmDon't form your conclusions based on ideology. Objectively analyze facts first, then develop an opinion.
A Real (dumb) American - Proving that even in the most innocent of hands, a library card can be a very dangerous thing.
October 13th, 2006 at 5:22 pmCheck out what the World Net Daily educated ARA is saying on the top thread about General Jones for further proof that ARA is...well, I just can't find the words to describe ARA.
October 13th, 2006 at 5:34 pmLook back at ARA's posts. With a very few exceptions, they look like ads, not posts. He's a troll, and he's barely paying attention and never directly and specifically addresses anyone's challenge. He's probably JS or corporate salaried.
BTW: I just finished reading State of Fear, and if it wasn't being talked about like it was supposedly real facts that have been kept secret from the global public, it sounds like Jurassic Park: A hardly plausible but entertaining "what if" If Mikey haddn't started preaching, I might decide to read another one of his books, but if this is the best "Real Science" he can come up with, he can go jump. We've got enough misinformation out there without a fiction writer trying to get into the act.
October 13th, 2006 at 6:00 pmARA
you are stupid man. you dont understand science do you?
October 13th, 2006 at 7:08 pm#16, you are correct. But these people have been brainwashed. Global warming is their religion. So the best thing to do is to let them carry on with their emotional outbursts, and keep the GOP in at least one tier of the Federal government to veto any "global warming" legislation.
Easy peasy.
October 13th, 2006 at 7:44 pmARA got shredded.
October 13th, 2006 at 7:53 pmARA [...] you dont understand science do you?
Comment by NewProg — October 13, 2006 @ 7:08 pm
A "Real" American is probably one of those people who think that science is like a religion, with a dogma and precepts you need to have blind faith on.
He also probably thinks one can "believe" in science.
Hence his acceptance of "State of Fear" as a source of sound scientific information: he thinks all he has to do is believe in it.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:20 pmARA:
October 13th, 2006 at 8:26 pmGreat. Most of living Nobel Science Laureates signed the letter that says that Global Warming is a big threat, but you know better, because some site says it's 'voodoo science'.
has anyone ever listened to the scientist that claim the earth goes through gradual warming and cooling phases.............key word gradual, not like hollywoods the day after tomorrow, but actual several hundred year changes of sometimes nearly 20 degrees?
thats kinda what i thought, no one is gonna accept that one cause we are all 100% biased and have our mind made up b4 we read this article
October 13th, 2006 at 9:11 pm#16, you are correct. But these people have been brainwashed. Global warming is their religion.
Comment by muckdog — October 13, 2006 @ 7:44 pm
Who are you talking about? The entire scientific community? The National Academy of Sciences? Over a hundred Nobel prize winners?
October 13th, 2006 at 9:14 pm#67
Nebulator,
What is your point? Of course climate has moved in cycles. Nobody in the scientific community denies this. It is the rate of change that the scientific community is talking about, and the current rate of change is far more rapid than can be explained by natural climate cycles.
October 13th, 2006 at 9:25 pm#68. LOL. I've got a four-letter word for you and your global warming hysterics: V-E-T-O.
October 13th, 2006 at 9:42 pm#68. LOL. I’ve got a four-letter word for you and your global warming hysterics: V-E-T-O.
Comment by muckdog — October 13, 2006 @ 9:42 pm
Yeah, LOL to you too, jackass. Tell me, how does it feel to have the entire scientific community, and a very large majority of all educated people, and a great many uneducated people, disagree with you on this point? Incredible as this might seem to you, even a majority of Republicans accept the science.
Not getting enough time out from under your slimy rock to learn better yet?
October 13th, 2006 at 9:50 pmA real American...still not convinced by all of your corporate websites. God, you are stupid.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:54 pm#49 Thank you for using factoid in its proper sense!!
October 13th, 2006 at 10:56 pmI think the argument of if global warming is happening or not is mute cause it is happening. By how much and what will happen is up for scientist argue and discuss. However these "predictions" are not science. Any one can show a computer model of the earth with increased temps. How do you prove what that your model was the correct model - you can't. If you can't test your hypothesis how can you with any certainty proclaim what the cost of not acting on global warming are. Second what evidence is there that decreasing or reducing hour green house gases will do anything. Here we have a problem that the benefits can't be predicted. the cost are infinite. The developing world (ie china india brazil...) are to worried about important things like extreme poverty. In a local sense what price to you think people will pay to decrease green house gas emissions - $30 a year per person probably little resistance, $300 a year per person that 1200 for a family of four most would be against it, $3000 a year per person only a very few who don't mind Stalinist tactics to get people to pay. What I believe we need to stop and think. remember that the reason that a great super technology hasn't be implemented is probably it made very little economic sense. Everything needs to be paid for by someone and that will be either you by the government taxing you or you by the increase in the price electricity, and other forms of energy. To say that we can just get the corporations to pay for it is naive. well enough rambling
October 14th, 2006 at 12:53 amSo...what exactly are you saying, mrebus?
October 14th, 2006 at 12:55 am#74 Sooo...you are saying these corporations can pay for fake studies but they cannot pay for cleanup of their messes? Is that you Exxon???
October 14th, 2006 at 1:01 amLets just say that at least some of the cost will be encurred by you.
October 14th, 2006 at 1:20 amwhat marginal cost are you willing to pay for.
Second the science that global warming is happening is solid. however studies like this are bad science. as I explained above. I believe that we need to focus on things like poverty, free trade and other ideas that will benifit all before we waste billions on a problem that we might not be able to do anything about. I would recomend reading the Copenhagen Concensus comissioned by The Economist for some level headed cost benifit analysis.
October 14th, 2006 at 1:25 am#77 What costs are you willing to bear if we do nothing? Could be catastrophic, you know. We should be buying insurance against the worst case scenario (or even the middle case scenario) by aggressively conserving energy and promoting alternative energies. I dispute your claim that doing these things to mitigate global warming will even cost us anything. Money now filling the pockets of the fossil fuel industry will be diverted to entire new industries, spurring economic growth. It is an absurd myth that we have to keep paying our eye teeth to big oil to keep the economy going. And there will be positive ancillary effects, like reduced air pollution, that will reduce expensive medical consequences like asthma, just to cite one example.
October 14th, 2006 at 1:29 amI believe that we need to focus on things like poverty, free trade and other ideas that will benifit all before we waste billions on a problem that we might not be able to do anything about.
Comment by mrebus — October 14, 2006 @ 1:25 am
Of what use will it be to focus on poverty when entire poor nations are underwater 50 years from now? Of what use will it be to focus on poverty if widespread desertification occurs in poor regions of the world? Will our billions of dollars really be worth much when widespread die off of species occurs? When agricultural lands are ruined by rapid climate change that is incompatible with existing flora and fauna? When mega-storms destroy our coastal cities?
And just what does free trade have to do with it? Your focus seems to rest on the status quo, and in effect you are saying do nothing, because you claim it is hopeless. What proof do you have of that? You advocate total capitulation.
This is a typical response in the short-sighted business community.
October 14th, 2006 at 1:38 amHowever these “predictions†are not science. Any one can show a computer model of the earth with increased temps. How do you prove what that your model was the correct model - you can’t. If you can’t test your hypothesis how can you with any certainty proclaim what the cost of not acting on global warming are. Second what evidence is there that decreasing or reducing hour green house gases will do anything.
Comment by mrebus — October 14, 2006 @ 12:53 am
This statement shows that you don't understand science in general, and global warming science in particular.
October 14th, 2006 at 1:42 amHere we have a problem that the benefits can’t be predicted. the cost are infinite.
Huh? Who says the costs are "infinite"? This claim is simply bogus.
What I believe we need to stop and think.
I think you in particular need to stop and thing, because what you are saying doesn't make much sense.
To say that we can just get the corporations to pay for it is naive.
Straw man argument. No one serious is saying that.
October 14th, 2006 at 1:46 amIf global warming is keeping you up at night, feel free to get rid of your car(s), electrical and gas appliances, and quit your job from evil corporate America. Don't let me or those Vetoing global warming legislation stop you from saving the planet. LOL.
October 14th, 2006 at 2:41 amLook in the Bible : God said 'here is the earth, take it, rape it, it's yours'.
I am sick to death of this climate change junk science. It's all been devised by men and women who HATE AMERICA! God is in charge of our environment, and will keep it right for us. It is in the Bible.
Rev. Neill
October 14th, 2006 at 8:12 amIdaho
[...] The Cost of Ignoring Climate Change Is $20 Trillion A Year A new study by the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University reveals the severe economic consequences of doing nothing. [...]
October 14th, 2006 at 9:39 amIf global warming is keeping you up at night, feel free to get rid of your car(s), electrical and gas appliances, and quit your job from evil corporate America.
Comment by muckdog — October 14, 2006 @ 2:41 am
Muckdog, is there is enough brain in your head to make a real argument, instead of a straw man argument? You pose a false dichotomy in which there are only two choices: do nothing (which you prefer), or take unnecessarily extreme actions that have little or nothing to do with tackling the problem at hand. You are like your pal Bush, who says things like "if I can't listen to everyone without warrants, then I can't listen to anyone at all, even terrorists". In other words, you sound like an imbecile.
October 14th, 2006 at 11:10 amMuckdog, you never answered my question, so I will repeat it: how you feel about being a fringe wacko who no one listens to anymore. Do you hear your coworkers whispering about you behind your back? "There goes so and so. Geez, what a wacko. Yeah, I hear he reads World Net Daily."
October 14th, 2006 at 11:18 amYou HAVE to see the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth'. This isn't some boring documentary, this is an action movie, and all of us are the people in it. Sadly, though, eveyrone in the movie dies if we let the bad guys win.
We have a 10 year window to do something about Global Warming. If we act now, we can avoid losing the 100+ million people Al Gore was discussing. However, if we don't act now, take that 100 million, and multiply it. There are things not even discussed in the movie that are problems.
Imagine massive crop failiure WORLDWIDE. Imagine refugees from every nation heading North. Imagine the "North" being flooded. That's permanently standing water people - dangerous viruses LOVE standing water. Add perhaps 10 million or so to the death count for viral infections. Then add roughly 500 million to starvation in the years after global warming rears all of it's ugly head, not including the millions more involved a fight for the last fertile land.
Just because you won't be alive when ALL of global warming is seen, doesn't mean you shouldn't do something. Every day something isn't done, you're contributing to our planet's ultimate demise.
Where will your children, and their children go? Probably not very far.
See An Inconvenient Truth, and join the fight to save humanity.
October 14th, 2006 at 10:45 pmhahahaha
I'm so sure these losers at tufts can predict the ecconomy in 100 years.
What a freaking joke.
Imagine what people must have thought 100 years ago about protecting the envirnoment. If they were to look 100 years into the future, they would say "The Cost of not finding a way to deal with all the horseshit from horse and buggy carrigdges in 100 years will be $100 billion dollars."
Get a clue.
October 16th, 2006 at 3:36 am[...] read more | digg story [...]
October 16th, 2006 at 3:48 ambut governments are still not going to take any action about it........
October 16th, 2006 at 9:05 am#84
#
Look in the Bible : God said ‘here is the earth, take it, rape it, it’s yours’.
I am sick to death of this climate change junk science. It’s all been devised by men and women who HATE AMERICA! God is in charge of our environment, and will keep it right for us. It is in the Bible.
Rev. Neill
Idaho
Rev, assuming you have a house/trailer to live in, do you go around it destroying everything without a care for your space, and (obviously even less) the space you share with others? If it were your daughter that got raped on the advice you have misconstrued as somehow "being ok" from the bible, I'm sure your impetulant comments would stay right where they belong.
October 16th, 2006 at 9:23 amLol #16 -
"It dang near snowed in October, so there's no global warming." Hey, moron, look at the amount of ice melting at the poles. You obviously know nothing about climate science. Examine the raw data about the average global temperature, and you'll see. We do nothing, we're f'd. If we do what you imply we do (nothing), your grandkids, if you have any, will curse your idiocy and everyone else's idiocy in ignoring this problem.
October 16th, 2006 at 10:32 amWe can't stop global warming because we didn't cause it. The Sun is.
October 16th, 2006 at 12:03 pmGlobal warming, and its causes are still largely within error bars far too large for us to do anything - yet. Such articles about costs are simply silly. Since I read a lot of the refereed stuff, I don't find nearly the "consensus" that is contained within the MSM. This is understandable, since journalists are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. However, for those of you who claim to be science types, I find it alarming that you invoke ad hominum attacks...a prime sign of a person with no arguing ability. I don't think you are really science types. Please, go to the Kos or other marshmallow logic blog and spew venum there.
October 16th, 2006 at 1:30 pmEvery one reading this article will be dead long dead before 2100 do you think anybody gives a shit if this planet is fried. If you had come up with some weapon more powerful than a nuke you might be able to draw some attention as well make some money. You are wasting you time worrying about global warming.
October 16th, 2006 at 1:43 pmThis global warming bull is ridiculous. Do you really buy into this? I don't think it's even warmed 3 degrees in 200 years and this is CATASTROPHIC? And how did you come up with these pseudo science numbers?
Keep walking to the cliff's edge poor sheep! Ridiculous.
October 16th, 2006 at 5:17 pmJohn: Do you care about your children, or their children? You'd rather your children suffer than you so much as lift a finger to save their lives? You are the definition of asshole, my friend.
Brian: There is a SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. That means people who know stuff about science and have spent their lives researching it are IN 99% AGREEMENT that Global Warming IS happening and that it will be catastrophic.
Imagine a Katrina in New York. No, imagine something worse than Katrina. Scientists earlier this year began debating the prospect of a category 6 hurricane. They think we'll need it.
Why not prevent Global Warming? We have all the technology, we have all the ability, and we have all the proof that Global Warming is occuring and that it's serious. The cost of doing nothing is MILLIONS of human lives and trillions of dollars. The cost of doing something is losing only a few lives, and maybe billions of dollars.
And for the bimbos who claim that since we just had an early winter storm, that we are clearly not experiencing global warming - that's ice caps melting, and sending cool air into the atmosphere. Remember, global warming effects are unpredictable in many cases - but we know the cause is an increase in temperature. Obviously, we'll have more arid areas and less temperate areas. We'll see melting ice caps for sure, and we know what happens when those ice caps melt, right? More water in the ocean, would the correct answer. More water = flooding. Flooding = standing water. Standing water = disease that causes thousands of deaths. Disease = mass migration, etc etc.
Global Warming IS the ultimate armageddon scenario. But it's also preventable, at least the worst parts of it.
October 16th, 2006 at 6:00 pm[...] Think Progress » REPORT: The Cost of Ignoring Climate Change Is $20 Trillion A Year (tags: current environment globalwarming green money news Science) [...]
October 17th, 2006 at 3:16 am[...] Å to se globalnog zatopljenja tiÄe, ovih dana sam na nekoliko mjesta Äitala o tome kako nas u ovom sluÄaju pasivnost koÅ¡ta puno viÅ¡e od aktivnosti. ZnaÄi, ne djelovanje u sprjeÄavanju razvoja globalnog zatopljenja koÅ¡ta (cijeli svijet) znatno viÅ¡e nego da se neÅ¡to zapravo i napravi po tom pitanju. Konkretnije, gubitci uzrokovani pasivnošću se izražavaju u trilijunima. Borja, koji je linkao jedan od dotiÄnih tekstova, dobro je primijetio da će na kraju financijski interesi ipak prevagnuti, Å¡to je dobro jer će se poÄeti djelovati. [...]
October 17th, 2006 at 6:47 am[...] Global warming deniers frequently fall back on the following argument: even if global warming is real, it ’s too expensive to mitigate. For example, the National Review’s Jason Steorts said it would require “economic castration.” Such arguments, however, ignore the costs of inaction.read more | digg story [...]
October 18th, 2006 at 10:41 amIn reference to the initial post...
Although I do believe that global warming is happening, and that human activity is largely responsible, it is counter-productive to state such overly-speculative 'data' as proof of the occurrence of global warming, and of the necessity for human acknowledgement and intervention. These financial estimates are given without any explanation of what is taken into consideration--making them seem exaggerative and unconvincing.
October 19th, 2006 at 6:58 amResponse to #79...
you suggest that there are more pressing issues than global warming--namely, poverty, and free trade. The important thing about global warming is that it is not some distant problem with intangible consequences. If we proceed to do nothing, climate changes and irregular weather patterns will occur, causing crop failure in agricultural regions across the globe.
So, if poverty and free trade are your main concerns, then should not a force that will increase both hunger/starvation, and a lack of commodities (crop) be of a major concern?
October 19th, 2006 at 1:22 pm[...] Page Summary: dollars at 2002 prices), or 6 to 8 percent of global economic output at that time (Kemfert 2005). I mean, if you are hell bent on hasting Armageddon, why worry about global warming. I think he knows he will live to see the day when he is disgraced by his bullshit book. By how much and what will happen is up for scientist argue and discuss.read more | digg story [...]
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:36 pmHi! Very nice site! Thanks you very much! fEa0MYVBgUc
January 12th, 2007 at 1:25 amhttp://xkefgbzs.com
February 2nd, 2007 at 1:59 pm[...] it would require “economic castration.†Such arguments, however, ignore the costs of inaction.read more | digg story April 11th, 2007 | Category: Environment News [...]
April 11th, 2007 at 5:40 am