PDA

View Full Version : Global warming's trillion dollar debate


Saguaro
11-17-2007, 10:08 AM
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Kyoto, the far-reaching agreement reached in 1997 intended to reduce global carbon emissions, is nothing compared to what could be coming next as the world's governments confront the ecological damage from global warming and debate what needs to be done to fix it.

The fourth and final UN report on climate change, due Saturday, is expected to emphasize that the warming of the planet is "unequivocal" and that humans are the main cause. That report will act as a blueprint for the next crucial round of climate talks starting next month in Bali, Indonesia.

The Bali talks will set the groundwork for the successor to the Kyoto treaty, which expires in 2012. They will also guide global climate policy for at least the next decade, and dictate the types of long-term investment decisions made by big industries and utilities.

Scientists say up to an 85 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions is needed to head off potential catastrophic changes that could lead to more floods and famine. How to best achieve those cuts is where the fight begins.

Backed by the strong language in the new United Nation's report, some will argue for mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions, which could be expensive for big carbon emitters, such as utilities, and seen by some as barriers to development.

Proponents for mandatory caps say they are the best way to avoid the catastrophic changes that would cost trillions of dollars and put hundreds of millions of lives at risk.

Opponents to the caps will say voluntary restrictions are a better bet, and suggest postponing mandatory caps for a few decades down the road when a richer world is better able to pay for it, and cleaner energy technologies are more developed.

The Bush administration has so far resisted mandatory caps, and all eyes will be watching to see if White House negotiators hold up the Bali talks.

"We seek a 'Bali Roadmap' that will advance negotiations," Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs and an expected lead negotiator in Bali, told a Senate committee earlier this week. But she added that "a future framework must be flexible and accommodate a diverse range of national circumstances."

The battle will likely be pitched and the stakes high as each side of the global warming debate says the other's plan will cost the global economy trillions of dollars. And public attention in the U.S. - which never signed the first Kyoto agreement - has arguably never been greater.

High prices for gasoline and coal-generated electricity - the main culprits behind human-induced carbon dioxide emissions - have helped bring global warming back into the spotlight. Al Gore has also done his part, with his 2006 Oscar-winning documentary "An inconvenient Truth." And rightly or wrongly, large parts of the public sees Hurricane Katrina and the devastation of New Orleans as a harbinger of things to come.

Al Gore's next act: Planet-saving VC
But the UN's climate report provides perhaps the strongest reason for focusing attention on the problem.

Previous versions of the report, written in the 1990s, said global warming was likely happening and likely caused by humans but acknowledged that the science was not yet certain. The latest report, released in three parts over the course of this year, took away practically all that uncertainty.

Written by over 2,500 top government-appointed scientists from around the world, the fourth report is a user-friendly version that will be used by politicians and bureaucrats as a blueprint during negotiations next month in Bali and beyond.

It won't recommend specific policy - such as whether to enact mandatory carbon caps or not - but it will convey the urgency of the problem and attempt to quantify some of the costs.

"The pace of change seems to be accelerating, not slowing," said Gary Yohe, a professor of economics at Wesleyan and an author of the report. "We're going to get there pretty quick."

By "there" he means the amount of degrees the earth can warm by without seeing too many of the real catastrophic effects that have been predicted - severe droughts in the world's food producing regions of Africa, North and South America and Asia, and massive flooding of coastal cities.

Under current policy, it was generally thought the world would warm by about 5 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050, enough to trigger those severe effects.

"But 2050 isn't really a great guess anymore," said Yohe.

So many scientists and policymakers want to limit the world's warming to about 3 or 4 degrees Fahrenheit, which the U.N. report says will require a 50 to 85 percent reduction in carbon dioxide levels by 2050.

Otherwise, say some, the costs could be severe.

"It's a huge, huge human disaster in the making," said Pete Altman, who studies global warming issues at the National Environmental Trust.

In addition to the human toll, Altman said global warming could cost the work economy up to 1 to 5 percent of its total economic output per year, or $500 billion to $3 trillion, using 2006 figures.

"We shouldn't be daunted by the ambition it will take to limit these outcomes," he said.

For solar power, the future looks bright
But others aren't so sure the outcomes will be as dire as Altman says.

"There's a wide range of uncertainty over how much impact" this will have, said Anne Smith, vice president of CRA International, an economics consulting firm.

Smith said it would be far cheaper for the economy overall to rely on gradual reductions in the near term, not the abrupt kind a mandatory carbon cap would likely bring.

Over time, she said new technologies for dealing with carbon and producing cleaner energy will become available - and they could be adopted with far fewer costs further down the road.

She also said a framework needs to be developed to bring developing countries with big emissions - like China and India - on board. She said it's highly unlikely most developing nations would ever agree to mandatory carbon caps.

By going ahead without a more global framework, "We would just be harming our own economy without doing a thing for the environment," she said.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/15/news/international/climate_change/index.htm?cnn=yes

Trueblue
11-17-2007, 10:45 AM
Written by over 2,500 top government-appointed scientists from around the world, the fourth report is a user-friendly version that will be used by politicians and bureaucrats as a blueprint during negotiations next month in Bali and beyond.

Wabash
11-17-2007, 01:47 PM
Govt. appointed huh? :rofl:rofl Too funny and so very sad at the same time....!
If it involves the UN in any way, shape or form, it's a fuck in the ass to the USA! It's ALL about control! Global Control by the UN!

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x77/watermelon039/DVD-GWGG.jpg

Wabash
11-17-2007, 01:49 PM
Thanks for the heads up Sag. The fight against Socialism is just beginning!

Wabash
11-17-2007, 02:44 PM
In this eye-opening documentary, Global Warming or Global Governance, you'll not only hear from leading scientists and climatologists who refute the current crop of alarmists cries; but also congressmen, economists, newscasters and sociologists who believe that something more sinister is involved. What is their objective? They want the United States to give up her sovereignty and her rights surrendering them to the socialistic mandates of the United Nations.

A global problem, so the Kyoto protocol proclaims, requires a global solution. This new non-elected governing body would place global institutions, which are not accountable to the American people, in control of even the smallest aspect of the U.S. and World economies; controlling how much fuel is sent to a region and doling out citations for violators. Every American, every citizen of the world, needs to hear the other side of the global warming story.


Well, libs...that isn't for me and I will fight it till my dying day! Global tryanny via the UN and Socialists everywhere! Don't Sell out America!

Trueblue
11-17-2007, 05:18 PM
The UN is incapable of controlling the US.

The US is party to a number of treaties. A voluntary party. This one would be the same. It is in our national interest to participate in some sort of treaty on global warming-unchecked global warming poses a huge threat to peace.

Whatever we do that creates massive inequality, suffering, or injustice is what bites us in the ass, every single time.

Wabash
11-17-2007, 06:47 PM
The UN is incapable of controlling the US.

The US is party to a number of treaties. A voluntary party. This one would be the same. It is in our national interest to participate in some sort of treaty on global warming-unchecked global warming poses a huge threat to peace.

Whatever we do that creates massive inequality, suffering, or injustice is what bites us in the ass, every single time.
And participation in Kyoto will Fuck Us in the ASS!
Same as UN participation! Get Us Out of the UN!
Keep America a sovereign nation! Do Not participate in a socialist agenda!

Wabash
11-17-2007, 06:51 PM
Kyoto is a BAD deal...always was and still is!

April15
11-17-2007, 06:58 PM
Treaty or not we should be lowering our output. This end will require government mandates. Capitalism is unable to do these kinds of things by free will. Much like the deregulation of S&L's precipitated the failure there.

Wabash
11-17-2007, 07:10 PM
Treaty or not we should be lowering our output. This end will require government mandates. Capitalism is unable to do these kinds of things by free will. Much like the deregulation of S&L's precipitated the failure there.

Ok...I agree with that...but on OUR terms, not ones dictated by the Socialist of the world, including the UN!

April15
11-17-2007, 07:15 PM
Ok...I agree with that...but on OUR terms, not ones dictated by the Socialist of the world, including the UN!We would be leading by action. The best way to get conformance in peaceful matters.

bbrown
11-18-2007, 06:20 AM
Treaty or not we should be lowering our output. This end will require government mandates. Capitalism is unable to do these kinds of things by free will. Much like the deregulation of S&L's precipitated the failure there.

Do you have any idea what a 90% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions (http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/3083) would entail? Would it be anything less than a total curtailment of our way of life?

And for what? To my mind, the science regarding the consequences of the present situation is far from settled. I know "everyone" knows it's going to be Day After Tomorrow but I don't buy it. And I'm certainly not down with tanking our economy on Al Gore's (and the UN's) say-so.

Bill

Trueblue
11-18-2007, 10:57 AM
Do you have any idea what a 90% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions (http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/3083) would entail? Would it be anything less than a total curtailment of our way of life?

And for what? To my mind, the science regarding the consequences of the present situation is far from settled. I know "everyone" knows it's going to be Day After Tomorrow but I don't buy it. And I'm certainly not down with tanking our economy on Al Gore's (and the UN's) say-so.

Bill

Now if you spent a little time studying, you'd know it wasn't on Al Gore's say so OR the UN's say so.

It's on science's say-so, and as an agnostic, I am surprised at you taking an anti-science stance.

BTW, do you have ANY idea what the computer models on global warming predict in terms of a total curtailment of our way of life?

Trueblue
11-18-2007, 11:08 AM
BTW, solving this crisis is going to be a technological boom for the United States and other industrialized countries.

Wabash
11-19-2007, 01:19 PM
Now if you spent a little time studying, you'd know it wasn't on Al Gore's say so OR the UN's say so.

It's on science's say-so, and as an agnostic, I am surprised at you taking an anti-science stance.

BTW, do you have ANY idea what the computer models on global warming predict in terms of a total curtailment of our way of life?

Yep, it shows that we are sooooo far in the hole, there ain't nutting we can do about it!!!

Never was anyway...the planet will take care of itself! The GW agenda is ALL about control!!!!
It will eventually add up to Kill or be Killed resisiting this crap! I am not alone in this!

Wabash
11-19-2007, 01:51 PM
No matter what these Controllers attempt to do in Bali, it will be real bad for the USA and other countries! It will stifle business and commerace worldwide. People will run, or ride, naked in the streets on bicycles or on foot!

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x77/watermelon039/bikers.jpg

Trueblue
11-19-2007, 06:55 PM
[/B]

Yep, it shows that we are sooooo far in the hole, there ain't nutting we can do about it!!!

Never was anyway...the planet will take care of itself! The GW agenda is ALL about control!!!!
It will eventually add up to Kill or be Killed resisiting this crap! I am not alone in this!

I'm not worried about the planet, I'm worried about the people, animals, and plants who live on it.