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.
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.”
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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!
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.
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.