Global Warming to Cost TRILLIONS$$

[ttiger]

You are over simplifying an incredibly complex problem. I would also like to see where you got those numbers from.

Throwing money at a disease doesn't mean you will find a cure. Any number like that is obviously someone's theory on what it would cost to cure a disease. I'm surprised that someone that is so skeptical about a theory like global warming would post a number like that (which is purely theoretical) as if it were fact.

Saying that it will cost $1,000,000 Billion to reduce CO2 levels is also incorrect because you aren't saying how much you are trying to reduce CO2 levels. Nor is reducing CO2 alone a solution. Different levels of reduction would also have different costs. How much would it have cost if we had acted 20 years ago?

Saying it is just about CO2 is also incorrect. There are many other gases and factors which do things like deplete the ozone layer. The ozone layer has a direct effect on our climate. Ignoring a giant ever growing hole in our ozone and saying all these changes are normal or that they are part of some cycle is ridiculous. I can remember in the 80's there were so called experts trying to say there was no hole in the ozone. Now it is so big that no one even questions whether or not it exists. I won't even go into the amount of ultra radiation hitting us now because of the damage to the ozone. But if you have time look up the incidence of eye and skin cancer over the past 20-30 years.

 

[Ed30]

CO2 is the lifeblood of the planet. I'd like to see more of it.

The ozone layer repairs itself and doesn't need our help.

 

[GoPC]

Interesting bring the "hole" into this... I read recently in Popular Science if memory serves, that there is speculation and some (although I can't say how) history of the "hole" getting bigger and smaller throughout history. If is a common and recurring thing.

Kinda like the earth flatulating. Just the passing of gas.

I'll have to look around and see if I still have a copy of that.

GoPC

 

[JuniperPark]

ttiger -

The 1st post of this thread references the Trillion dollar cost -- actually I've read more like $2 trillion.

The $60 Billion number for curing disease was discussed when the Gates/Buffet charity was formed a few years ago. If money doesn't help research, we need to STOP all these charities, marathons, and fund-raisers right away, don't we?

And CO2 *IS* being pointed to as the main culprit in global warming.

I read a while back the ozone hole stopped growing years ago. As as far as skin cancer, sounds like it went up right about the time tanning beds became popular, isn't it? Also, as lifespans get longer, the greater the % of people who will die of cancers.

 

[H2FC]

The estimated cost of the global warning fight is in the Trillions$ (maybe more)....it's estimated to cost 20% of the world's economy if efforts aren't started soon. Read these reports...they are very informative.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6099272.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6098124.stm?lsf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6098362.stm

This story is for those who don't believe man-made co2 emissions are the cause....http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6098922.stm

As for the ozone layer...I read just the other day the hole is bigger now than it has ever been. It's the approx. size of the continental USA now. I'm not convinced the co2 emissions are the cause of that.

 

[ttiger]

The estimated cost of the global warning fight is in the Trillions$ (maybe more)....it's estimated to cost 20% of the world's economy if efforts aren't started soon. Read these reports...they are very informative.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6099272.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6098124.stm?lsf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6098362.stm

This story is for those who don't believe man-made co2 emissions are the cause....http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6098922.stm

As for the ozone layer...I read just the other day the hole is bigger now than it has ever been. It's the approx. size of the continental USA now. I'm not convinced the co2 emissions are the cause of that.

Things such as chlorofluorocarbons are mainly to blame for ozone depletion.

 

[Ed30]

Interesting speech on the subject:

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

 

[ttiger]

I didn't say funding research doesn't help find a cure. I said putting a dollar amount on a disease and saying if we have "x" amount of dollars we will have a cure once we have spent that money is not true. Although I'm sure some doctors might try to convince you otherwise. Anyway I will try to stay on point.

Juniper please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
so you can see there are many different factors. Even if CO2 is the main one or one you want to focus on the others are not negligible.

Some of the posts on here sound like people have already made their mind up that they are 100% correct end of discussion. That they are unwilling to even consider the possibility. Open your mind, this is something important enough to take seriously, regardless of the outcome.

 

[Duckinla]

the global warming people projected a record number of hurricanes hitting the ES East coast this season... I think 6 is the norm, and there were about a dozen last year. The season is almost over, so how many hurricanes did we have? Anyone? Anyone? The answer is: ZERO, far below the norm.

Been thinking about that one also. They seem to hammer away on anything that may show evidence one direction...but this is ignored altogether. Didn't all the news programs run stories about the coming tropical storm season and how bad it would be because of global warming? If they had guessed right it would be all we hear. But they guessed wrong. So it's not even a point of discussion.

The earth seems to be getting warmer. I don't know how long it will go or how warm it will get. I doubt there is anything to be done about it. I think it's nature driven as it was before we were here. I figure if humanity survives long enough to get taken out by nature rather than by ourselves, congratulations to us.

 

[GoPC]

The Earth is on a "heating" cycle... which according to many, happens something like every 5000 years as the earth "wobbles" on its axis. As the earth tilts AWAY from verticle, the caps are exposed more the sun and melt some, creates vapor and warms the planet. Then it reaches its limit and begins to literally stand back up more verticle again, as it does this, the pole become LESS exposed to the sun and begin to freeze back up again as the earth cools.

This is all pretty standard, we just happen to be in the warming cycle.

GoPC

 

[Beachie]

I read a while back the ozone hole stopped growing years ago. As as far as skin cancer, sounds like it went up right about the time tanning beds became popular, isn't it? Also, as lifespans get longer, the greater the % of people who will die of cancers.

The ozone hole is bigger than ever (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2586867&page=1) - it recently extended over the South of South America. Skin cancer is no joke here in Australia - at the height of summer it's recommended that we don't spend more than a few minutes outside. Almost 2% of our population is treated for skin cancer each year. One in 50 people that I meet today will have skin cancer this year. Think about that.

What's disturbing is presumably the naysayers must believe that we can pump any amount of crap into the atmosphere and it will have no effect what-so-ever. Either that, or you accept that there must be some level where it's becomes a bad thing.

Here's a nice example:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/busin...ighbours-fuming/2006/10/30/1162056928811.html

 

[Duckinla]

Skin cancer is a better arguement for change than global warming. I think there would be less resistance. People in general public resist global warming theory because they think they might be getting sold an exageration. Not because they don't agree with improving the situation. Polluting companys of course have different reasons for resisting.

 

[Beachie]

Skin cancer is a better arguement for change than global warming. I think there would be less resistance. People in general public resist global warming theory because they think they might be getting sold an exageration. Not because they don't agree with improving the situation. Polluting companys of course have different reasons for resisting.

That's a good point. If you boil this down to the irrefutable facts:

1) We know that Ozone is one of the primary filters of UV as it enters our atmosphere.
2) We know that Ozone is depleted by non-natural gases released by humans (http://edition.cnn.com/NATURE/9907/02/ozone.enn/index.html?eref=sitesearch)
3) We know that UV causes skin cancer and eye cataracts.
4) We know that UV kills plankton, which is the foundation of the ecosystem.
5) We know that plankton produces half of the world's oxygen (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17405)

 

[Domagon]

So when are they going to do something about the biggest polluter of all ... the Earth! Ie. volcanos...

A few large volcanic eruptions will likely cool the Earth very noticeably - afterwhich, many people will wish for the old days when it was warmer.

And then there are that issue of Earth's various wobbles (yes, plural) ... or are some suggesting that we spend trillions more on stablizing Earth's wobbles - not sure how we'd do that when the U.S. and other nations can't even stabilize Iraq...

But that's another debate ... or is it? - all that fighting, burning oil fields, toxic waste such as remains of depleted uranium shells, etc can't be all that good for the environment either.

Ron

 

[Bart]

I never participate in political discussions and after this will not do this again, but there is something that (being a non-American) strikes me a bit:
when between 1997-1998 the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, there were two (major) countries against Kyoto: US (and) A (yeah, you gotta love Borat) and Australia. Both believed that Kyoto was a socialist conspiracy to transfer wealth from the rich West to the Third World countries. Global warming would hurt the economy and of course, we prefer the Earth to go to waste in stead of earning a bit less...

Today, when Polar ice caps are melting, greenhouse gas emission has never been bigger, skincancer is at unseen levels, USA is having more hurricanes each year due to the higher temperature of the Ocean, etc., it seems like they (=USA) finally start to care. Certainly since this Global Warming-phantom has been transformed into hard number$.

Come on USA, even Russia signed the Kyoto Protocol: what's holding you guys back ? You can put people on the moon, but are unable to reduce CO-emission ? Nah, try to kid somebody else.
It's a very good thing that Gore (whatever his hidden intentions may be) is trying to raise public awareness for this Problem. I hear Americans often talk about how we need to tackle certain problems not only for ourselfs, but also for our children, well, this is one of those Problems...
I hear certain people argue that Global Warming might have good effects and that there is no need for drastic measures. Then I ask myself: isn't that one heck of a bet ? I prefer to do 'something' about it and risking that it wouldn't have been necessary and would have cost a massive amount of dollars rather than not having done enough with the risk of destroying parts of our Earth.

 

[Duckinla]

Both believed that Kyoto was a socialist conspiracy to transfer wealth from the rich West to the Third World countries. Global warming would hurt the economy and of course, we prefer the Earth to go to waste in stead of earning a bit less...

The possibilities go well beyond just earning a bit less. You can reach a point where you have to shut down because you literally can't compete. That's not hypothetical, it is already happening. Millions of people in the U.S. have worked for companies that no longer exist because of the competitive disadvantages. 2 years ago I worked for a company that has since moved all production to China. My job in sales was safe but pretty much 95% of that company was put on the unemployment line. At some point you have to stop putting competitive disadvantages on the companies from developed countries. What would be the good to the world of transferring pollution from the U.S. to China? The playing field is so uneven as it is with cheap labor, government subsidies, cheap capital and artificially controlled exchange rates. How much more uneven should it be? How many more U.S. manufacturers need to be put out of business by 3rd world manufacturers?

 

[H2FC]

I never participate in political discussions and after this will not do this again, but there is something that (being a non-American) strikes me a bit:
when between 1997-1998 the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, there were two (major) countries against Kyoto: US (and) A (yeah, you gotta love Borat) and Australia. Both believed that Kyoto was a socialist conspiracy to transfer wealth from the rich West to the Third World countries. Global warming would hurt the economy and of course, we prefer the Earth to go to waste in stead of earning a bit less...

Today, when Polar ice caps are melting, greenhouse gas emission has never been bigger, skincancer is at unseen levels, USA is having more hurricanes each year due to the higher temperature of the Ocean, etc., it seems like they (=USA) finally start to care. Certainly since this Global Warming-phantom has been transformed into hard number$.

Come on USA, even Russia signed the Kyoto Protocol: what's holding you guys back ? You can put people on the moon, but are unable to reduce CO-emission ? Nah, try to kid somebody else.
It's a very good thing that Gore (whatever his hidden intentions may be) is trying to raise public awareness for this Problem. I hear Americans often talk about how we need to tackle certain problems not only for ourselfs, but also for our children, well, this is one of those Problems...
I hear certain people argue that Global Warming might have good effects and that there is no need for drastic measures. Then I ask myself: isn't that one heck of a bet ? I prefer to do 'something' about it and risking that it wouldn't have been necessary and would have cost a massive amount of dollars rather than not having done enough with the risk of destroying parts of our Earth.

Thanks for your input Dotstorm must of which I entirely agree with. It should be noted we have 2 main political parties here in the USA and I'm sure big changes will be made when the democrats take over in 2008 as most everybody expects them to. Thats when the Kyoto will be signed and the USA will lead the world in fighting global warming. I'm personally ashamed of my country and especially my president for not already doing so. Rest assured I'll do everything in my power to have him and his party replaced.

 

[GoPC]

Dotstorm,

Let's put this at a level that you can (perhaps) understand...

You have some property. It's your Family's farm and been in the Family for generations. Some complete stranger "stops by" one afternoon and notices that funny old bird that hangs out on the back forty and mentions what a pretty bird it is. "That's Jack", You reply because Jack has been there for as long as you can remember.

Two Weeks Later, a Government official stops by and hands you some paperwork declaring that your property is now a "habitat" and no longer to be commercially harvested. You are out of business and you can't sell your land, because it is worthless as a habitat.

Worse yet, the government that shut you down, isn't even your own.

THAT is the potential Kyoto.

You can tell me that would never happen until you are blue in the face, but once you grant that kind of power with little or no restriction, definition or condition, you open yourself and your country to all kinds of problems.

The US didn't shoot the treaty down completely, they pointed out the flaws and asked them to propose a revised version... which was flatly refused.

The US was right not to grant the ability for foreign COMPETITORS to have the unrestricted, final say in what US Based Business could survive and continue to compete in the Global Marketplace.

There are alwasy proposals and counter offers before contracts are signed.

Give the Republicans a bad deal on paper and when they reject it, you guys attack and jump all over it politically. Give the Dems the same kind of deal and when they reject it, you praise them for being cautious and wise.

How about a level playing field? If you didn't like something in YOUR agreement, you would ask for it to be changed... regardless of your political affiliation.

It just so happens you don't AGREE in this case, it doesn't make you right... just opinionated.

GoPC

as most everybody expects them to

Correction... as most Democrats expect them to



You know, it's such a given that you guys are going to sweep these elections too, why even bother to show up and vote?

GoPC

 

[JuniperPark]

I
... USA is having more hurricanes each year due to the higher temperature of the Ocean...

There have been ZERO hurricanes in the 2006 season... the norm would have been about 6.

Global warming seems to rely on 'junk science' and is proven wrong repeatedly. Not exactly something anyone want to bankrupt themselves over.

BTW, CO is not the gas in question, it's CO2, the harmless gas we all exhale that the treaty discusses.

 

[fatter]

Thanks for your input Dotstorm must of which I entirely agree with. It should be noted we have 2 main political parties here in the USA and I'm sure big changes will be made when the democrats take over in 2008 as most everybody expects them to. Thats when the Kyoto will be signed and the USA will lead the world in fighting global warming. I'm personally ashamed of my country and especially my president for not already doing so. Rest assured I'll do everything in my power to have him and his party replaced.

There wont be any changes even if dems take house and senate president Bush still has veto power, but what you are discounting is a lot of the dems who might win are conservative and will vote with the republicans anyway