$45 trillion needed to fight Global Warming, too much or too less?

Question

45 trillion dollar is equal to the entire world GDP for one whole year. Would it be too much or still not enought to fight off global warming, is it worth all the cost?

Answer 1

I don't know whether $45 trillion is too much or too little.

I do know that $45 trillion is much better spent on saving our planet from global warming that spending $10 trillion on an illegal, immoral 'war' in Iraq.  -RKO-  06/06/08

Answer 2

It's $45 trillion over 40 years and that equals 1.1% of global gdp. That's not bad and better than doing nothing.

Answer 3

clearly something needs to be done.

i'm not sure where the $45T came from, but with 2 questions next to each other, it's probably in today's news.

might i suggest that, if you're young, you support the idea.

it is a problem.

it's getting worse.

all the real science indicates that it's a problem.

the southwest has had a drought for 10 years now, that's just getting worse.

remember reading about the dust bowl?

think about what it'll be if it never stops.

that's the future of the US unless something fairly major is done.

Answer 4

Impossible to do! and this only cuts emission by 50 % !!! and add another 10-20 trillion to the price tag as government agencies always under-budget the ACTUAL amount needed!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3636...

This expenditure will never happen.

Answer 5

GDP is irrelevant if we lose the ability to feed the world's population if we don't make the required investment.

That said, current proposals focusing on CO2 in developed countries only are not stopping glboal CO2 emission growth, and they ignore the most productive and least cost approaches of reducing black soot and slowing population growth.

Here's this morning's headline:

Unemployment rate jumps to 5.5 percent in May, biggest rise since 1986; payrolls cut again

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080606/economy.h...

While China's economy is booming, and they've comitted to no pollution restraints.

When the heck are China and India going to agree to invest some reasonable portion of their exploding profits towards this problem?  It's far easie for them to make informed choices about low carbon impact development than it is for a country to replace its entire high carbon impact infrastrucure (everyone's homes for example).  The U.N., including its IPCC organization, needs to get a clue fast.

Answer 6

Four dollar a gallon gas seems to be doing a better job than all of the government programs in history. I propose a tax that create four dollars as the new floor price. Add to that 50 cents a year. It would keep the money in the US instead of the Arab countries at least.  Ear mark all of the taxes for developing alternative energy and it will be a tax that automatically disappears when it is no longer needed.

Answer 7

Due to the fact they are reacting to symptoms, any budget information is premature and won't address the problem. California and others are being knocked off the electrical grid. Blackouts and brownouts are 100% avoidable.

Solar radiation including the same UV that burns our skin is causing absorbent exterior building finishes to generate extreme heat the building isn't designed or insulated for.

Academia and the taught sciences consider temperature with the greatest of accuracy in a calculator. Architects, Engineers, Trades, insurers and everone including the building inspector is dependent on buildings functioning within design temperatures. Due to the fact these temperatures can't be seen, buildings are signed off as compliant with building code with everyone accepting responsibility. The whole process is blind in a calculator but the amount of emissions generated are relative to design temperatures.

Thermografix Consulting Corporation completed several years incorporating the most advanced temperature applications in the world to qualify building's energy performance and consumption.

The information isn't controversial, it is simply the evolution of temperature measurement. Go to this link to see the letter Thermografix sent to Western Governors & Provinces. http://www.thermoguy.com/pdfs/Western_Cl...

The letter will take you to a link showing the source of man made heat atmospherically. http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-h...

Academia is missing information and it is ridiculous to spend 45 trillion dollars on reducing heat trapping gases while solar radiation is boiling the surface of the exposed planet. Trees and land cover are designed to lessen the impact of the same UV that would kill us and we strip the ground of everything living to put up "sustainable" development.

Plant some trees and groundcover, lighter colors are required unless you have low-e finishes.

We are developing faster than the planet that sustains all life can handle and the cost is extinction of species(we are one)

That doesn't mean emissions are good, they are toxic. How many of you would leave your children in the garage with the car running? None, the exhaust fumes(emissions) would kill everyone. Look at the traffic out there, it is time to wake up. We all live in the bigger garage called our atmosphere and there is only one for the entire planet. There isn't enough money to spend your way out of what we are doing.

The wealthy need to ask what is enough because all of us are in this toxic world together, there isn't a happy place for the rich and famous.

Answer 8

"Fighting" global warming shouldn't get half of one friggin' cent! I don't want to support you religious beliefs with my tax money!! I don't ask you to give your taxes to my church!!

Answer 9

It's only about 1.1% of the worlds projected GDP for the time-frame 2010 - 2050.  The only way to answer your question accurately is to compare the cost of doing nothing (or some other alternative plan).  

Without an appropriate comparison of scenarios' it would be like saying, "treating my Cancer will cost more than I make in one year, so it's too expensive to try".  That's an irrelevant point if you factor in that curing the Cancer would actually strengthen your long-term financial position.

The extensive (and highly prestigious) British Stern Review of global warming economic impacts said:

"Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more."

So, with that additional information it sounds like 1.1% of GDP is actually a bargain price.

Answer 10

Why not? The sum of money could eventually help to save the life of the worldwide people if teh Earth really topples down in a few decades' time.

Answer 11

It would be money better spent to build some power plants in orbit, at least then we would no longer have brown and black outs to worry about from not having enough generation capacity.

Answer 12

its worth the cause because think of this would you rather kill a bunch of things and let global warming happen or would you save everything you pick...

Answer 13

I don't know how much would each country be required to pay then I would be able to tell you.  I think we need major research into alternative energy.

Answer 14

The road to ruin is paved with good intentions.

Answer 15

Note that most of what's proposed to fight global warming will also reduce dependence on expensive foreign oil.  So there are major benefits from the expenditure, over and above reducing global warming.  The "net" cost will be less.

But the proper balance between reduction and coping with some warming is a good topic for debate, unlike the reality of (mostly) man made global warming.  The best solution is clearly not either doing nothing or trying to stop it altogether, but something in between.

Answer 16

Way too much. Would be better spent on more prisons.

Answer 17

45 trillion over what time period?  How much is the damage if it is not fixed and over what time period?  You're right that it could be to much, but I don't think you have given enough information to make anything but an uninformed response.  

My home is 3 times my "worth" but since I can pay over 30 years and would have to pay about as much per month for shelter anyway, it isn't so bad.

Answer 18

a complete waste of money, in fact i wonder if they will actually spend a penny but charge us and tell us they're spending it on global warming

Answer 19

hello!!!??  it's way to much!  you know how much we should be spending??  $0.00!!!!!  why don't we spend that money on an ACUTAL problem??  like starving children or war torn countries aid???  seriously, people, all you hippies make me angry!  "global warming" is not real, and even if it was, we have more serious problems that need to be dealt with first.

Answer 20

They have a detailed outline of exactly what they will be spending the money on. I think creating energy independence for our country would in the long run create a much stronger economy.  Along with a stronger economy this pushes better technology forward.

Answer 21

Jim the Fee, here.

Fighting Global warming is NoT a question of huge amounts of money.  All that money does is encourage theives, crooks, neredowells and politicians to get in there and grab handsful of the loot!!  You can list page after page of problems that the Federal Government's of all of the Western well-to-do nations have "set up" to solve the various

world problems through the total of the 20th century.  The only thing that solved the problems (those that were solved) was the working-together of all of the people who were effected by the problem.  Global warming may be the greatest problem to beset all of mankind since the beginning; but money alone will not do one bit of good.

People ranging form Rachel Carson (the ddt whistle blower

who preached about "Silent Spring") to a point where DDT was finally banned -- thru all of the people who have sounded the battle cry of warning about all of the chemical and other modern inventions are doing to various aspects of our planet's life support system - ending, perhaps with Al Gore

and his cry of concern about global warming:  have, in the final analysis "risen to the challenge and found the solutions"

Money, to paraphrase old Mae West of the silent film days,

has nothing to do with it!!

Sorry to take away your dreams about money solving this problem - it just is not going to happen that way.  It will take

a grass roots movement involving the spokespersons who

represent the populations of all the world of nations that we

have invented to bring about a worldwide solution to

Global Warming.

So Be It

Jim the Fee

Answer 22

Being that we neither caused or can stop global warming, it is a $45 trillion being flushed down the toilet. we only need to create a toilet big enough to fit it down.