- This topic is empty.
- 6 February 2010 at 3:34 am #3562
From Seattle pi comes info that should give pause for thought to people who are scared that tackling global warming will be expensive – for of course the costs of warming itself will dwarf those required for actual effective action to stem the cooling:Quote:In a report released by the Pew Environment Group, two senior scientists put at $2.4 trillion – yes, trillion – costs that will be incurred if a melting Arctic loses its ability to cool the Earth's climate.
The report was made public as G7 finance ministers, from major industrial nations, meet on Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic.
"Putting a dollar figure on the Arctic's climate services allows us to better understand both the region's immense importance and the enormous price we will pay if the ice is lost," said Dr. Eban Goodstein, an economist and director of the Bard Center for Environmental Policy at New York's Bard College.
Goodstein, co-author of the report, added: "The cumulative cost of the melting Arctic in the next 40 years is equivalent to the annual gross domestic products of Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom combined."
The report, "An Initial Estimate of the Cost of Lost Climate Services Due to Changes in the Arctic Cryosphere," echoes findings of the 2006 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a research project that involved 300 scientists from northern countries.
"We urge the G7 finance ministers to commission a full economic analysis of the global climate services provided by a frozen Arctic and what losing the planet's 'air conditioner' will cost us," said the Pew Environment Group.6 June 2010 at 11:47 pm #4719Anonymous
The cost to stop global warming would be rather more than 2.4 trillion. We’re rather dependent on fossil fuels. If global warming is only 2.4 trillion dollars it would be much more economical to suffer it than undergo the prescriptions of many environmentalists.
On the other hand, a carbon tax could at least raise some tax revenues while cutting greenhouse emissions in the most economical fashion. There would still be a major gross cost, but if it balanced the budget and/or replaced the income tax, the cost of reengineering the economy would be at least partly offset by the benefit of reduced spurious financial games.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.