Do environmentalists understand that limiting global warming will cost billions of dollars we may not have?

Question

I wouldn't mind enviromentalists supporting global warming if they made it clear that they would support increasing our taxes to achieve that goal.

in other words, everyone in the world would like to eliminate emissions if it didn't cost anything but since it does the decision becomes a very complicated one based on financial aspects. right?

Answer 1

I'm sure they do understand this - plus isn't paying a bit more taxes better than your great great great grandkids dying a painful death somewhere along the line?

also - do you know how much your government has spent on the iraq war? You do have that money

Answer 2

Unless you got a line on a slightly used planet at a good price,we're stuck with this one! How much do you think we could sell this one for? Is it worth it?

Answer 3

My question is; do they realize after we remove all human emissions and we are still left with 95% of the current CO2 in atmosphere still being there. What are they going to do? Will they try and remove CO2 (AKA PLANT FOOD) till our plants die?

Answer 4

They can always get your taxes raised more.  I won't matter that China and India have not emission standard to speak of.  It is only pollution if the US does it.

Answer 5

And we do have the 2-4 trillion (so far) to go to war against a country that might have been run by an @4$#0)&, but was no direct threat to us?   The health of my family, country and world are more important to me than getting rid of someone that insulted the prez.

Answer 6

Well, not to speak for ALL environmentalists, but yes, I understand that curbing emissions to any significant degree will be extremely expensive, and that expense will be "in the short run".  However, I also believe that overall, in the long run, it will be more expensive to not do so.  Consequently, the choice is an easy one.

Answer 7

Limiting global warming will cost ~2% of global GDP.

Not limiting global warming may cost upwards of 25-33% of GDP to mitigate the damage.

Which is the better bargian?

It's always cheaper to prevent a problem than to fix it afterwards.

You know, like a stitch in time saves nine?

Answer 8

Some leftist European based group was tossing the seventy-trillion dollar amount the other day...their guesstimate on what it would cost us to solve 'global warming'.

That's money we can't afford, and because global warming is not happening it's money that should never be spent.  But already there are certain individuals and leftist outfits standing by to take your money.  Anyone who contributes a cent to these nuts is very foolish.

Answer 9

But the point is that the effects of global warming will cost even more, not just billions but actually TRILLIONS of dollars.  What was the cost of Katrina?  Something like 100 billion dollars.  What would be the cost of an entirely new water infrastructure in the western and southern United States?  Certainly hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars.  Who knows what the cost of changing our agricultural production and distribution regions would be.  Costs such as these will add up around the world, dwarfing the billions of dollars you're talking about.

Answer 10

They don't care.  after all, they are expecting to receive these billions.

Warmers do not care, and they would actually be pleased to see people starve as that reduces the "surplus population" of the Earth.

Answer 11

Do denialists not understand that ignoring global warming will cost us HUNDREDS of billions of dollars that we may not have?

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarmin...

http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/Climat...

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR%5Cglobalwarm...

Answer 12

Yes, addressing global warming may very well require increasing taxes.

However, addressing global warming now will not cripple our economy, it will only slow its growth (and will also create green collar jobs).  On the other hand, if we don't address global warming it will cost us a lot more in the future, and *will* cripple the economy.

For further details, see Myth #11 at the link below.

Answer 13

I don't think everybody understands it,

Some of them seem to be unable (or unwilling) to see the consequences of climate change legislation. They formed their opinion based on what other people say or after watching Al Gore's movie, and without doing any research on their own, they march the streets thinking they are the enlightened ones...

if they had a tiny bit of motivation to actually do some research, they'd realize that the main consequence of imposing global warming legislation would be:

People and the economy suffering from higher energy prices while the climate continues its own course, just like it has always done it ....... regardless of any new human legislation.

But then again, these individuals may not even  understand how  higher energy prices can damage the world's economy, third world countries particularly (hunger, diseases, etc)

Answer 14

I doubt they have thought much about the cost..........except those who are scrambling to get themselves in positions to profit from the "windfall profits".  I know I have been buying stocks with that in mind!

Seriously though, it is important to keep our home clean but you don't throw  out the ox that grinds the corn to eliminate the p**p.

Answer 15

It may be a false assumption that it would cost billions of dollars.  As a consumer it makes financial sense for me to invest in many products that are more sustainable already on the market.  High efficiency appliances, cfl's, high mileage vehicles may or may not cost more upfront than less efficient products but more than make up for the cost difference over the life of the product.  

On a larger scale we are seeing the cost of fossil fuels rising while technology is driving the cost of renewable energies down.  If that trend continues it will eventually make more economic sense to replace traditional energy sources with those that do not generate greenhouse gases.

I think the assumption that tax rates would have to raised to pay for the changes needed.  First of all if you raise the tax rate then you may actually decrease revenue because you throttle economic growth.  Secondly the market is already driving energy companies and consumer goods towards sustainability.

Answer 16

Yes. And it's not only environmentalists who know this - serious politicians, think tanks and credible policy makers also know this.

Gordon Brown (PM of the UK) just announced a 100 billion pound measure for developing 'green' energy sources.

Most of the developing world is already spending the money; it's only the US who aren't... and so, the US is falling behind in energy security, is having to spend disproportionate amounts on costly oil, falling behind in technology and knowledge - might help explain why the US$ is in free fall but the Euro is doing very well.

As for "we don't have" the money, any country that can spend trillions on bombing the cr*p out of people in a foreign land does have the money.

And, as others have said, we can't afford not to - the cost of the consequences are far higher than the cost of prevention.

You are right when you say it is a complicated one and that it will be based on financial aspects (e.g. cost of uncontrolled climate change).