GLOBAL WARMING REPORT: Right-Wing Fiction vs. Economic Reality
GLOBAL WARMING REPORT: Right-Wing Fiction vs. Economic Reality
As the scientific consensus on the reality of global warming’s effects have strengthened, global warming deniers have resorted to arguing that, even if it is real, it’s too expensive to mitigate. Some examples:
National Review’s Jason Steorts: “Even if warming is predominately the result of human activity, and even if its harms will outweigh its benefits, the question is whether it will be bad enough to justify the economic castration that significant greenhouse-gas reductions would require.”
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK): “The Kyoto Protocol is a lot of economic pain for no climate gain.”
Rush Limbaugh: “‘Would you get off the global warming stuff,’ some people are saying. No, I’m not going to get off of it because what’s at stake is the US economy, folks, what’s at stake is our lifestyle. The people that are trying to force this on everybody and take the natural fluctuations of our climate.”
The right wing is right, but for all the wrong reasons. The U.S. economy and our lifestyles are indeed at stake if we continue to listen to the deniers. According to a new groundbreaking report commissioned by the British government — “the most comprehensive review ever carried out on the economics of climate change” — the economic costs of doing nothing far outweigh the costs of mitigating global warming’s effects. Here are a few of the report’s key conclusions:
Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.
In contrast, the costs of action — reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change — can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.
[…]
The transition to a low-carbon economy will bring challenges for competitiveness but also opportunities for growth. … Markets for low-carbon energy products are likely to be worth at least $500bn per year by 2050, and perhaps much more. … [F]rom implementing strong mitigation policies this year, shifting the world onto the better path: the net benefits would be of the order of $2.5 trillion. This figure will increase over time. This is not an estimate of net benefits occurring in this year, but a measure of the benefits that could flow from actions taken this year; many of the costs and benefits would be in the medium to long term.
The message for those willing to heed reality is that if you’re concerned about global warming’s impact on the economy, now is the time to act.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
40 Responses to “GLOBAL WARMING REPORT: Right-Wing Fiction vs. Economic Reality”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Rush Limbaugh: “… what’s at stake is the US economy, folks, what’s at stake is our lifestyle…”
he’s not talking ALL “folks”, you know…
October 30th, 2006 at 10:20 amthe whole point behind today’s repug idealology - selfish greed…
“tinkle down economics - i got mine, piss on you”…
Okay, the same liars and idiots refused to acknowledge the existence of global warming are now admitting that it’s real, but are quick to reassure us that it doesn’t pose any danger, and in case we can’t afford to do anything about it. I’m so surprised. And we should listen to these liars and idiots why?
October 30th, 2006 at 10:23 amGlobal warming is real, but the GOP membership does not care, because they hope Bush causes a nuclear war, so they expect to get raptured > sounds weird, but the gullible Repubs believe it > lol.
October 30th, 2006 at 10:26 amThis is not the catastrophic climate change we are looking for, they can go about their business.
October 30th, 2006 at 10:27 amideology… heh
October 30th, 2006 at 10:28 amSkeptic #1, the Decider, said that he wouldn’t sign on to Kyoto (i.e. do anything about global warming). He said it would hurt the US economy (i.e. oil and coal company profits). The Stern Review puts a stake through the heart of that argument by showing that just the opposite is true. Not acting is the real threat to the economy.
October 30th, 2006 at 10:30 amUnfortunately, most Americans are too dumb to think about consequences twenty+ years into the future. I’m afraid this country won’t do anything significant about global warming until Manhattan is under water.
Hopefully, the economics of new energy sources/technology will drive things the other way, but I’m not optimistic.
We need politicians who can communicate to the American public the need to make sacrifices for the better good. Sadly, they appear to be missing. When was the last time you hear a politician mention the word “sacrifice” in a speech?
October 30th, 2006 at 10:36 amSO the Brits hire Al Gore, have Branson a Brit leader in business and come out with this study. Nice to see some leadership in this world. I thought that was the role of the US. Something must have happened in the last 6 or so years. Wonder what that was?
October 30th, 2006 at 10:37 amThe real economic damage of a science-based climate policy is that all of these science-denying Republican hacks would have to get real jobs.
That would be a disaster … for them.
October 30th, 2006 at 10:49 am.
Deny reality or blame the press, Dems and Clinton. This has been the Rethug M.O. since jump, led by bigots, bravado, and bull$hit. Hey, if the people don’t stand up to Bush and his parrots this time, this country is lost. The world is lost. The crazies will have won.
October 30th, 2006 at 10:49 amSkeptic #1, the Decider, said that he wouldn’t sign on to Kyoto (i.e. do anything about global warming). He said it would hurt the US economy (i.e. oil and coal company profits).
Comment by Patrick+Kennedy — October 30, 2006 @ 10:30 am
Don’t forget that the Liar-In-Chief said during his 2000 presidential campaign that he would back the Kyoto treaty, and abrogated this promise within weeks of getting elected.
October 30th, 2006 at 10:52 amThe Stern report identifies the biggest contributor to global greenhouse emissions. While liberals focus on the oil industry and attack republicans, those who are serious about greenhouse emissions understand the real problem that TP liberals ignore - deforestation in third world countries.
Stern Report Conclusion:
October 30th, 2006 at 10:54 amAction to reduce deforestation: The loss of natural forests around the world contributes more to global emissions each year than the transport sector.
what??? no jmh here at this thread? why, over at FAST he had this to say:
Gas prices are low to to a glut of oil on the market, because OPEC increased inventories due to a bogus forecast of “worst hurrican season ever†warnings from pseudo-scientists and pseudo-climatologists who factor “global warming†into their projections. Global warming is NOT true, and it shows in the bogus forecasts.
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler — October 30, 2006 @ 10:28 am
huh.
October 30th, 2006 at 10:57 amAny studies or real data on this impendin “economic castration” or is this just more opinion on a scientific/economic issue?
October 30th, 2006 at 11:01 amI dunno, Rush. I think the lifestyle of anybody with coastal properties is going to be pretty adversely affected when rising sea levels consume their homes. Starting with the Bush compound in Kennebunkport.
October 30th, 2006 at 11:04 ami was reading a review in “The Progressive” about the book “The Omnivore’s Dilemma…”, in which it is pointed out that “The food industry burns nearly a fifth of all the petroleum consumed in the United States (about as much as automobiles do)”…”Today, it takes between seven and ten calories of fossil fuel energy to deliver one calorie of food energy to an American plate.”
October 30th, 2006 at 11:07 amwe ALL need to do more to buy locally and seasonally grown food.
…
#12….
October 30th, 2006 at 11:08 amThank you for adding this very important aspect of the climate change issue.
It is the herbaceous kingdom functioning as a major carbon sink and producer of oxygen for the animal kingdom that makes life as we know it possible.
And the entities responsible for the laying to waste of natural forests are….?
That’s right! The same corporate/religio/military imperialists who are the support mechanism for the current republican mis-administration.
Poor Republicans. They’ve been attached to big government handouts that protect their market interests for so long, they can’t see the new market opportunities in developing products for low carbon, low pollution consumer demand. They refuse to see the world changing before their eyes and they can’t see the opportunity to exploit this change.
These closed market capitalists remind me of the people who were ridiculing the horseless carriage back at the end of the horse-and-buggy days. I doubt they’ll be able to adapt to this new environment. Maybe there is intelligent design after all…
October 30th, 2006 at 11:21 amThere is much to learn about NOW if we are to ensure our, our children and grandchildren’s survival - THE MEANING OF THE 21st CENTURY by James Martin (author of THE WIRED SOCIETY)
Google it - it’s on Amazon
October 30th, 2006 at 11:37 amThe Stern report identifies the biggest contributor to global greenhouse emissions. While liberals focus on the oil industry and attack republicans, those who are serious about greenhouse emissions understand the real problem that TP liberals ignore - deforestation in third world countries.
Comment by Hippie with a pistol — October 30, 2006 @ 10:54 am
Actually, jerk, I think most people do understand that deforestation is a major problem. And I think that most people at this web site know that you have been running a disinformation campaign here about global warming. So here you are again, trying to create another diversion, just like when you tried to claim that CO2 emissions are declining, not rising, so therefore we don’t need to worry about it, and blah, blah, blah.
Let me sum it up for you: we need to cut CO2 emissions. Big time. So go peddle your fossil fuel industry lies somewhere else.
October 30th, 2006 at 12:13 pmLush RimJaubgh. What an asshat.
October 30th, 2006 at 12:14 pmSo here you are again, trying to create another diversion, just like when you tried to claim that CO2 emissions are declining.
False, I provided the data that proved the US has reduced the rate of greenhouse gas emissions compared to the 90’s.
You can’t even get your facts straight, idiot.
October 30th, 2006 at 12:32 pmFalse, I provided the data that proved the US has reduced the rate of greenhouse gas emissions compared to the 90’s.
Comment by Hippie with a pistol — October 30, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
No, liar, you cherry-picked data. CO2 emissions are rising, and will continue to rise for the foreseeable future, according to the very data you cited before. But your goal here isn’t to actually prove your points. It is to create the false impression of ongoing debate, when in fact the verdict has already been rendered. Stall, divert, delay, those are your tactics, and you use them in the service of the fossil fuel industry and its proxies.
October 30th, 2006 at 12:45 pmRush: When you or your children cant take a breath without coughing, when all water gets poisonous, when coasts dissapear…put your BIG screen TV on and enjoy your lifestyle, loser.
October 30th, 2006 at 1:16 pmGod forbid we should be “forced” to alter our fat-ass, TV-watching, SUV-driving, gluttonous lifestyles for something as meaningless as saving the planet. What a bunch of idiots.
October 30th, 2006 at 1:36 pmI honestly think that they all know whats going on with greenhouse gases, I think the real issue that they are not willing to talk about in detail is ‘is it already too late to help?’
October 30th, 2006 at 1:46 pmThe Republicans are damn right. It’s like the man-on-the-street commentator I read in The Onion: “The health of the economy demands that we destroy the planet.”
October 30th, 2006 at 2:02 pmQuickly the clarion call goes out to morons who feel it’s their solomn duty to protect the interests of large fossil fuel industries who have been enjoying unprecidented profits at all of our expense. Don’t do anything to hurt the precious oil industry!! The posters here are either paid by the industry, and that’s bad enough, or their even worse than that - not paid and still jumping up to protect power any way they can. How incredibly pathetic.
October 30th, 2006 at 2:29 pmSorry — I meant to post that THEY’RE even worse than that…
October 30th, 2006 at 2:31 pm#29 - it is true. If companies start to loose money because of the cutbacks that they will have to make due to polution, it’s not the economy that will suffer the most it will be the wallets in politicians pockets
October 30th, 2006 at 2:38 pmThese rat bastards on the far right are in such a need for a recto-cranial surgery it’s not even funny.
October 30th, 2006 at 3:15 pmReal,
First you say that I claimed the emissions are declining. That was never my argument. Then you change your argument and say that I cherry-picked the data, when in fact I used all available data from the Annual Report to the UN on Greenhouse Gas Emissions to prove that the US has reduced the rate of emissions compared to the 90’s.
Then you make this statement that is completely false:
It is to create the false impression of ongoing debate, when in fact the verdict has already been rendered.
According to who, TP liberals? Now that you’ve been wrong 3 times, what will your new argument be?
October 30th, 2006 at 3:31 pmIf we are wrong, what is the harm longterm done? Making the planet a better place to live?
If they are wrong, the results may be catastrophic for all live on Earth.
October 30th, 2006 at 3:41 pmUsing the right-wing media machine, the oil and natural gas industry has done an excellent job of brainwashing millions of Americans into believing that global warming is a liberal lie. It’s scary how many otherwise seemingly intelligent people — not just rednecks — believe the G.O.P.’s version of reality. I suppose the right has to be better a lying, because there’s so much to cover up.
October 30th, 2006 at 6:21 pm[…] Sorry I haven’t gotten around to a post today. I’ve actually been working all day on behind the scene stuff for the site. So, here’s a great article from the really great site, Think Progress : […]
October 31st, 2006 at 12:22 am[…] More… […]
October 31st, 2006 at 2:04 pmCheck out the Murdoch press e.g. the Times in the UK. The line seems to be to blame environmentalists(!) for the crisis because of their association (in the ‘thinking’ of the right) with left wing groups, and still to argue that cutting greenhouse emissions is compatible with exponential economic growth as the main policy goal. You only need to state it clearly to render it absurd.
November 3rd, 2006 at 6:31 amWhy should this all come down to Republican vs. Democrat. Can’t you see that both parties attempt to manipulate us for reasons totally unrelated to the Global Warming issue? 300 million Americans cannot possibly reverse or offset what potentially 1.3 Billion Chinese consumers will produce in CO2 emmissions as the Chinese economy continues to grow. Do you really believe that a majority of Americans will choose to live with less and will be willing to pay more for Food, Energy, etc. while developing countries are given a free pass on their emmissions? Human nature tells me that they WILL NOT!
February 26th, 2007 at 12:37 pmI feel guilty about the shrinking Martian Ice caps - My great grand children may never see the southern polar cap if the sun keeps warming up like it has been lately — what can I do to help?
February 28th, 2007 at 11:26 pm[…] he has been a convenient megaphone for the climate change denier crowd. He has interviewed them, reinforced their rhetoric, been suckered by fake research, and even given his own interpretation of the facts […]
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:15 am