U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-03-2019, 07:59 AM
 
Location: CO/UT/AZ/NM Catch me if you can!
6,147 posts, read 5,579,129 times
Reputation: 13416

Advertisements

Quote:
The consulting firm Moody’s Analytics says climate change could inflict $69 trillion in damage on the global economy by the year 2100, assuming that warming hits the two-degree Celsius threshold widely seen as the limit to stem its most dire effects.

Moody’s says in a new climate change report that warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, increasingly seen by scientists as a climate-stabilizing limit, would still cause $54 trillion in damages by the end of the century.

The firm warns that passing the two-degree threshold “could hit tipping points for even larger and irreversible warming feedback loops such as permanent summer ice melt in the Arctic Ocean.”

The new report predicts that rising temperatures will “universally hurt worker health and productivity” and that more frequent extreme weather events “will increasingly disrupt and damage critical infrastructure and property.”
- MORE

While some wish to focus on the costs of a switch to green energy, the costs of doing nothing are far more dire. Moody's is not run by a bunch of crazed environmentalists seeking world dominium nor is Moody's in the business of publishing wild-eyed diatribes about imaginary financial costs. If anything their estimates are far too low.

The longer we wait, the greater the damage and the higher the cost of trying to fix something that's broken. A carbon tax is pennies by comparison.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-03-2019, 08:10 AM
 
5,717 posts, read 2,713,100 times
Reputation: 7359
If democrats get they’re way, climate change will cost us $69 trillion by 2030.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2019, 08:16 AM
 
37,767 posts, read 20,241,734 times
Reputation: 17490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
The longer we wait, the greater the damage and the higher the cost of trying to fix something that's broken. A carbon tax is pennies by comparison.
Two things...

1- You make this seem as though it's a roof on a house. Just fix it. The sun controls the climate - not us.

2- What does a carbon tax fix?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2019, 08:27 AM
 
Location: CO/UT/AZ/NM Catch me if you can!
6,147 posts, read 5,579,129 times
Reputation: 13416
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
Two things...

1- You make this seem as though it's a roof on a house. Just fix it. The sun controls the climate - not us.

2- What does a carbon tax fix?
1- At this point in the history of our solar system the sun's impact the earth's climate is minor by comparison with the impact of all the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.

2- A carbon tax would do the same thing the tax on cigarettes does - it decreases the demand.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2019, 08:28 AM
 
9,797 posts, read 3,604,382 times
Reputation: 5683
Assuming average 2% growth to the global GDP over the next 80 years, the sum total of GDP between now and then is $17,051 trillion, or $17 quadrillion.

69 / 17,051 = 0.4%

So the "catastrophic" effect on the GDP is a predicted 0.4% decrease in annual growth? For the current year, that = $352 billion, and given the US share of GDP, that approximates out to a "catastrophic" $84 billion, which is approximately what our government spends in 6 days.

And this "catastrophe" uses a set of assumptions and hypothetical arguments t conjure a worst case scenario...which for US citizens approximates to what our government spends in 6 days? That's absolute worst case, let us all be terrified and panicked ZOMG scenario....a 0.095%hit to our GDP?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2019, 08:32 AM
 
13,905 posts, read 5,598,510 times
Reputation: 6958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
1- At this point in the history of our solar system the sun's impact the earth's climate is minor by comparison with the impact of all the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.

2- A carbon tax would do the same thing the tax on cigarettes does - it decreases the demand.
1. complete nonsense
2. nobody is going to reduce their energy use, only increase it as the population grows and more electronic devices are in use.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2019, 08:52 AM
 
37,767 posts, read 20,241,734 times
Reputation: 17490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
1- At this point in the history of our solar system the sun's impact the earth's climate is minor by comparison with the impact of all the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.

2- A carbon tax would do the same thing the tax on cigarettes does - it decreases the demand.

1- I think you need to do about 2 minutes of research on that. That is an amazingly inaccurate statement. If you want me to provide a link, I will.

2- So nothing is really "fixed" - you just want to change behavior through the tax code. What if people don't want to change - then what?

Last edited by DRob4JC; 07-03-2019 at 10:00 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2019, 09:46 AM
 
Location: CO/UT/AZ/NM Catch me if you can!
6,147 posts, read 5,579,129 times
Reputation: 13416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Assuming average 2% growth to the global GDP over the next 80 years, the sum total of GDP between now and then is $17,051 trillion, or $17 quadrillion.

69 / 17,051 = 0.4%

So the "catastrophic" effect on the GDP is a predicted 0.4% decrease in annual growth? For the current year, that = $352 billion, and given the US share of GDP, that approximates out to a "catastrophic" $84 billion, which is approximately what our government spends in 6 days.

And this "catastrophe" uses a set of assumptions and hypothetical arguments t conjure a worst case scenario...which for US citizens approximates to what our government spends in 6 days? That's absolute worst case, let us all be terrified and panicked ZOMG scenario....a 0.095%hit to our GDP?
You are making the highly unlikely assumption that global GDP will perk along just like always while we do absolutely nothing to solve the problem for 80 more years. The impact of global warming can not be switched on and off like a light switch. It is an on-going thing that builds upon itself and the distress compounds over time.

BTW, your numbers make absolutely no sense. Where did they come from other than your imagination?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2019, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
32,222 posts, read 14,500,414 times
Reputation: 23797
So, the Climate Changes naturally. Reducing CO2, which is NOT a pollutant will do nothing. Also, even if the U.S. does something, which would kill the economy, China, India, and Russia WILL NOT. Stop being an alarmist!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2019, 09:56 AM
Status: "Just a big game." (set 1 day ago)
 
Location: Pennsylvania
22,491 posts, read 7,978,294 times
Reputation: 18425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
1- At this point in the history of our solar system the sun's impact the earth's climate is minor by comparison with the impact of all the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.

2- A carbon tax would do the same thing the tax on cigarettes does - it decreases the demand.
Please explain how Co2 levels melted all of the ice 11,000 years ago.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top