Which strategy will end up with a higher price tag ?
Question by Ralphy: Which strategy will end up with a higher price tag ?
Abruptly shutting down the world economy and spending trillions replacing energy sources
OR
dealing with consequences of “global warming/cooling/change” as they (if they) arise
What do you think? Answer below!
13 Responses to Which strategy will end up with a higher price tag ?
Leave a Reply
The 1st one will probably have a higher price tag like at the start but the 2nd one will cost a lot of money over time so it could be either way
♥ !Baby Ox! ♥
December 6, 2013 at 10:51 pm
There is no question that shutting down economies will harm people far more. Longer growing seasons and warmer nights never hurt anyone. When it was warmer than now a thousand years ago, it was a prosperous time. When did all this seeing into the future become believable. Who are all these idiot leftists that think they are prophets and why do sane people listen to them. The modeles suggest less than a degree of difference. What makes anyone think that is a bad thing. They have poisoned even reason and common sense of way too many.
bravozulu
December 6, 2013 at 11:06 pm
The world economy will not be “shut down” by investing in renewable energy. It actually opens alot of new markets and options for the economy (eg. Carbon trading, etc.). Some people are set to make alot of money out of this!
The price of adapting to global warming is not just a monetary value as preventing it is. The price of global warming is altered habitats, threatened food production, water security issues, biodiversity loss, etc. Extinction is possibly the worst price the world will pay. Once a species is lost it can never be replaced. How can you put a price on that?
Lu Lu
December 6, 2013 at 11:52 pm
The first will destroy what is left of the worlds economy. The second will cost nothing because there will be nothing to spend money on as our current world climate is much colder than all previous climate optimums and drastically colder than the holocene climate optimum.
Charles M
December 7, 2013 at 12:46 am
Since the temperature change that may happen is slight, and the chances of some good coming of a warmer earth are good, and since we can’t do much for the world if our economy tanks, and since our economy is looking bad right now, I say wait and see. IMHO.
The EPA may act without congress’s help on this one (regulation is easier than legislation) costing our economy $ 7 trillion by 2029. You have to ask if we could do more good for U.S. and the world with $ 7 trillion than keeping the temperature from climbing two-tenths of one degree?
New Mexican
December 7, 2013 at 1:42 am
Dealing with the consequences of global warming is cheapest, because we don’t have to do anything. Climate change is natural, not manmade…we should just forget about the whole thing.
davem
December 7, 2013 at 2:35 am
Well, the phrasing of your question is really stupid, why would anyone consider shutting down the world economy? Are you proposing that? Certainly none of the people that believe in AGW would suggest that, it’s stupid.
On the other hand “dealing with consequences…as they ..arise” is pretty dumb too. It doesn’t take many catastrophic events to add up to a lot of money. How much money did Katrina cost? Perhaps $ 100 billion dollars. How much did Ike cost? 30 billion dollars. What sort of cost do you put on the 100,000 lives that were lost in Myanmar this year due to Cyclone Nargis? What would be the cost of flooding of the Sacramento Delta that would turn the California Water Project brackish and cut off Southern California’s northern water supply for a year or more? What would be the cost on new “dust bowls” all over the world? What would be cost of a 3 meter sea level rise? I’ll tell you right now it would be in the trillions.
The world economy already seems to be in dire straits, perhaps a changeover to a non-fossil fuel based economy might be the right thing to jump-start it.
pegminer
December 7, 2013 at 3:27 am
The answer…NEITHER! First of all, there should be a transition into green electric production, not a total shut down. We need fuel sources that are perpetual and will not run out. Oil and coal will not last past the next 30 years or so. We might as well tackle this problem now, versus hand our children another problem we’ve decided to put off.
Secondly, we do not fully understand the consequences of the dramatic climate change we are seeing, especially in the last 30 years. CO2 levels in our atmosphere have never reached the current levels they are at now, especially at a rate at which they are now climbing. Therefore, we cannot put a price tag on climate change if we don’t know what to fully expect.
Climate change is real and WE are the source of this change. Nearly 90% of scientific studies derive this same conclusion…if you will not look at simple CO2 trends throughout the history of the planet (taken from glacial samples and other dating methods) then perhaps you’ll notice record high temperatures all around the globe and the record increase in devastating storms/natural events world wide.
I consider the production of green energy and the development of green technology to be a tremendous opportunity to not only utilize technologies with eternal sources (sun, wind, the earth’s heat, etc.) and improve national security (less foreign imports and energy independence), but also to begin exporting these developed goods/services/technologies to other nations (forget the price tag…there is an opportunity to make a profit!). Those who stay the course of “we’ll deal with it tomorrow” will run out of fossil fuels (and yes, this is true), will be behind technologically, and will be behind as a developing nation in an ever increasing competitive environment we call the global economy.
In fact, having a source of traditional fossil fuels may eventually become the source of your economic “shut down” as these natural resources fade away in the near future.
JD
December 7, 2013 at 4:23 am
Drastic governmental efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions won’t be possible without hurting the world’s economy. CO2 TAX for everybody & higher gas prices would also mean the burden gets passed down to consumers. Restrictions in productivity is the icing on the cake, particularly for 3rd world countries.
All those efforts might, just might only reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, and I said might because the main source of CO2 is natural. Furthermore, If indeed we are entering a cooling trend, all CO2 would be most welcome.
Scientists are still not sure about this cooling phase, but there are some indications. We do know, however, that warming stopped in 1998.
.If it is true that we are at the beginning of a cooling trend, then growing seasons will be shorter for many years, so we’d better stop burning our food supply for bio-fuel like we’re currently doing and start stocking it instead….or we’ll be in BIG trouble.
..edit..
So your first choice would undoubtedly come with higher price!
Sam
December 7, 2013 at 4:45 am
Since there is nothing man can do to effect the climate, either way, warmer of cooler, than your first choice would definitely have the higher price tag.
Keep in mind, how strong Planet Earth really is. One volcanic eruption puts more debris in the atmosphere in minutes than what all the man made activity has done to the present time. Man continues to build “earthquake proof” structures, and rebuilds these structures after earthquakes. Same thing with storm shelters built to withstand the elements. Sooner or later, these shelters don’t “withstand”.
Mankind needs to get away from its own arrogant thinking that leads us to believe we are “all powerful”. This place we call home, (Earth) has a way of reminding us from time to time, how strong we really aren’t.
Grayrider
December 7, 2013 at 5:28 am
1st. Because without a WORLD economy there would be no federal economy. No state economy. No YOU economy.
JesusFreakjs
December 7, 2013 at 6:20 am
As some others have pointed out the ill considered things the AGW promoters have already gotten implemented have killed millions of people in the last few years and actually made things worse environmentally. They have not affected climate at all but these green activities have bee a massive disaster for people and the environment. The AGW greens do not comprehend the bases of any large-scale involvement in society or ecology. This rule is “First do no harm!” And they have already done a ton of harm with just minor actions like the low scale implementation of bio-fuels that has destroyed millions of acres of tropical rain forest in Brazil, Indonesia and Burma. This has also raised food costs in the developed world to new highs and starved millions of third world people to death because the grain was turned into fuel instead of feeding the hungry.
Problem is we know it warmed up for a while and that it was the sun that caused the warming that stopped in 1950. Then things cooled slightly to about the 1900 level until the late 70s when it warmed up again for a few years and now it shows signs of potentially cooling off again. The only thing unusual about the 20th century warming was that was the mildest warming in history and most of the best scientists are concerned that it might not be a true climate optimum like previous ones at all. But just another short warm spike like has already occurred several times previously in the little ice age, one of which was much hotter and more sudden than our current warming has been or even potentially could be. So be careful with religious freaks that only want control over the government and economy.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/1425chap4.htm
James E
December 7, 2013 at 6:49 am
1. Fossil fuel sources are finite and will run out in about 20 years. Do you propose to wait until fossil fuels run out before investing in alternatives? The investment will need to be made within the next 20 years regardless of which option is chosen. The question is whether to start investing in new energy sources now with some chance of reducing the costs of global warming or to invest later and bear more adaptation costs.
2. Your question is based on the false assumption that alternative energy sources need to cost more. My company is currently selling the energy equivalent of a barrel of oil for $ 19.50 to industrial users from an alternative source and making a profit. The price is low to make it economic for buyers to convert their equipment to a new fuel source. After the conversions are made, a market price based on the price of fossil fuels will be charged and our profit will increase. Would you rather buy from people that crash airplanes into your office towers at $ 54 (or much higher) a barrel or from domestic supply with the jobs and taxes staying in your country?
Despite my prior remarks, I do hope that you are successful in discouraging investment in alternative energy. My company currently owns a tiny share of the North American energy market, but is investing in more plant & equipment to expand our capacity to about 3200 boe/day. It will be easier to increase our market share if serious competition is delayed.
d/dx+d/dy+d/dz
December 7, 2013 at 7:01 am