Fighting global warming hurting the economy?

Question

Why do some countries (e.g. UK and Australia, but there are more) seem to be prepared to introduce schemes to fight the so-called "global warming" and "climate change", introducing huge additional taxes for their citizens, which is going to hurt people and therefore the economy as a whole, while it is very uncertain indeed that even if these schemes succeed in reducing these "terrible CO2 emissions", that it will do anything to slow down global warming or stop climate change? Warming and cooling of the planet has been taking place since the beginning of time and climates have always been changing. Do governments really believe that the earth's climates can be affected by making everybody scared about their so-called "carbon footprint" and forcing people to reduce it?

Answer 1

1) It's cheaper than not doing anything, for example:

The >₤1bn (2008 value) Thames flood barrier cannot cope with rising sea levels. The UK has choices:

Building another barrier (est. ₤2-3bn and this just for London);

Trying to slow or stop rising sea levels or;

Do nothing - "Failure to invest in flood defences on the east coast of England could result in £16bn worth of damage and put lives at risk" (Association of British Insurers).

2) It is not "very uncertain indeed"; the science is actually quite robust in deciding that stopping CO2 concentrations at, say 350-450ppm would stop climate catastrophes and buy time to adapt to changes. What is also certain is that not doing anything - continuing with our profligate ways will almost certainly cause the 6th mass extinction on this planet and huge, if not catastrophic, adverse affects upon the majority of humans on this planet.

Yes, "warming and cooling of the planet has been taking place since the beginning of time" but not at this pace; cliamte change at this speed has happened five times before - each time resulted in a mass extinction. (Actually, current predictions say this time will be the fastest ever).

3) Many progressive governments see the huge economic advantages to this - responding to global warming is providing a big incentive into new technologies and innovation that in turn produce high-paying jobs and competitive advantages. Germany is home to 32% of the solar equipment manufacturers in the world and almost 30% of global wind turbine manufacturing capacity is German.

4) Fighting GW, even if you don't believe in it, brings other benefits such as a better environment (less pollution), higher standards of living for lower costs (less spent on irrational consumerism and energy costs) and less dependence on oil and gas (better national security, lower costs per unit of GDP). Some countries (e.g. Portugal, Germany, CostaRica, NZ, etc) are aiming to be significantly oil free in the next few decades - how will Australia and the UK compete if they are dependent on 3, 4, $500/barrel oil and other countries are getting most of their energy for free (Denmark already gets 20% of its energy needs from wind)?

Fighting GW doesn't hurt the economy.

A Luddite-like resistance to change and reluctance to fight GW is what will hurt the economy.

Has anyone looked at the recent exchange rates between 'green' Europe and non-Green, oil-profligate UK, Australia, Canada, US?

I'm not saying it's the only cause but...

Answer 2

the sacrifices are necessary! which one is more harmful to lead or to lose?

the  economy much less harmful to lose them our own planet in which we live!!

Answer 3

Sure, we need to clean up the atmosphere, but only for the reason that it is toxic and bad for our health and agriculture, not because of global warming.

Carbon trading will not do anything to lessen pollution, it will just lighten our wallets with totally unnecessary bueracracy.

All carbon trading will do is hand over our countries to those that will continue to pollute, by making our producers and manufacturers too expensive.

Answer 4

actually we just seem to be polluting the earths atmosphere makeing more people sick and make it easier for some people to die the climate will always be changing as will the natural world and we should let it take its course rather than trying to thinks that we need to stop it. their are two main factors concerning the health of the earth that we need to stop asnd solve 1. rubbish and 2.car/train etc emmisions

Answer 5

without proper research this theory makes youlook like a crack-pot... i'd be interested in what evidence you have to support it...

Answer 6

It makes sense to lessen pollution in general, doesn't it? Who could argue with LESS pollution? And why?

If we try to lessen greenhouse gases and it turns out we are experiencing a natural "warming trend," then all we did was make the planet a little cleaner.

Answer 7

Do we lessen pollution to the point of not affording fuel, and losing your job, or living in a cold home during the winter, because of the cost of heating oil?

C02 is not causing GW, it is aproduct of GW.

Answer 8

yes it does

Answer 9

Heres a wild thought, perhaps these politicians (UK & Oz) have been convinced by the IPCC and their own scientific advisers and that they live on the same planet as do their children and if they don't do something now it will be far more expensive to try and fix it later.

Answer 10

I suspect that is a way of stimulating the economy of those countries, as abtuse as that may sound. Combating "global warming" opens a whole new economic frountier now... dosen't it? Lot o' money to be made.

...Think about it.

Answer 11

Not compared to not fighting it.

It is very certain that reducing CO2 will reduce global warming, and reduce this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096...

Governments believe it because scientists have proven it.

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....

summarized at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us.  The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

Answer 12

Actually, it's the Government, at least in the U.S., that's largely responsible.Here's why.All Gasoline powered Vehicles from ' 96 to the present are required by the EPA-OBD II vehicle emissions inspection law to operate at 14.7 parts of air to 1 part of fuel.Any change whatsoever, even if emissions are lowered, will result in a failed inspection.And this insane law, that only benefits the big oil companies, was passed during the Clinton administration, with Al Gore's enthusiastic support ! Go figure ! The point is this.Gasoline can be safely converted into a vapor that is 100 parts of air to 1 part of fuel.Even the largest SUV could easily get 50 + MPG, and emit a fraction of the emissions of a conventional fuel system.And I'm not the first to figure this out.Far from it ! For proof, go to http://energy21.freeservers.com/bookrep.... and http://www.gasholemovie.com , then do a search on [the late] Tom Ogle.Even if you don't believe any of this, the fact remains that it is illegal to even attempt to vaporize fuel on any vehicle in the U.S. that's 12 years old, or newer.If anyone in government power even cares about the environment, then this insane law that only benefits big oil has got to change.But, it ain't gonna happen !

Answer 13

Yes, governments believe that.  The only real debate is whether to use rigid regulation or free market tactics to reduce the causes of global warming.  

I suggest you do a little more reading to understand the role of human and other natural causes of global warming.  Nobody doubts that there are natural causes including sun and changes in the earth's orbit.  The orbital changes are leading us into a warmer period, but scientists are trying to measure the affects of all causes.  Some say the natural causes are minor compared to the human causes, and some say that the human cause are making a natural change much worse.  Only the most naive are saying that we should go on as we are just because there are also natural causes.

Answer 14

I believe that Global Warming is an Environmentalist scam. I came to that conclusion after very careful deliberation. At first I attempted to calculate the extra heat from the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. I found that there is not enough extra CO2. As I dug deeper into Global Warming I discovered that the Martian Ice caps are melting. Which is an obvious sign that the Sun's output is increasing. I then tried to create a computer model but was overwhelmed by all the possible variables that would increase the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere. I found numerous things that seemed to be ignored by the Climate Scientist. For example paved roads. I could not find any research on the additional heat produced by a black paved road. The effect is talked about it in the polar regions as the ice melts and exposes dark soil it creates a runaway heating effect. Yet nothing on all the roads we have paved over the last 50 years. I was also wondering about automobile bodies. They are made of steel and absorb a lot of heat energy from the sun. What happens to this extra heat. I also looked at the heat produced by the internal combustion engine. Where does it go? What happens to the heat produced by the bodies of 5 billion people? I have concluded Global warming is a scam. But why? Who is pulling off this scam? The answer is everyone and no one. The scam was started by the environmentalist either on purpose or through incompetence. It has gained momentum mostly because of things like melting glaciers and hot summers. People do not get science. They get a glacier melting. Even if it has been doing it for ten thousand years. They only see the part that melts during their life. They look for an answer. The answer everyone propagates is global warming. Politicians are just normal people so they are as dumb as the general population. So when  the general population demands answers the politicians grasp at straws. Their best answer is Carbon Dioxide. They really don't know. what causes Global Warming and none of them are smart enough to try to figure it out let alone question it. I did not start out as an opponent of Global Warming I arrived there after I tried to understand it. I think a lot of people are now going along with it because of the potential profits involved. You do not look a gift hoarse in the mouth. People in the solar and wind energy business have a vested interest in propagating the myth. It doesn't matter. The Global warming thing has reached critical mass and can't be stopped.  Unfortunately we will waste a lot of resources on a solution to a problem that isn't real.  I have heard the argument that if all else fails at least we are cleaning up the environment. What are we cleaning up? CO2? It exist naturally. Who are we to say what the correct level is? Maybe we need a little more CO2. Perhaps with just a touch more CO2 the world would be a better place. Maybe it could turn the Sahara desert green. I'm sure this is a waste of money. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is all a waste of money and resources.

Answer 15

Ask a developing economy like China, Mexico etc.....  Ross Perot in his 1992 Presidential Election campaign said that one can only afford to be and environmentalist.  Meaning that a country must has a stable and increasing GDP before government inforced regulations to require private industry to install infrastructure to reduce the factor of global warming.

Answer 16

The United States having too much debt and experiencing a real estate crash is hurting the global economy, not the fight against climate change. The only thing the fight against climate change will do, and it's hard to see who is fighting that battle besides the UK, is shift the wealth from carbon based companies to more sustainable ventures, PERIOD!

Governments aren't scaring people, they are resisting. People scared of change are scaring people not to act.

Answer 17

I agree that its ridiculous to implement economic strategies which further the suffering of everyday people to combat earth changes that naturally happen over time.  

The thing is that this planet has a limited supply of resources and the renewable resources such as timber and fishes etc take longer to grow than it takes to consume them. There are not enough resources for all 6 billion people to have a first world lifestyle for every mod con that you enjoy some one or ones are living in poverty extreme poverty - without reasonable basic food clothing or shelter.  

The earth seems like a big place yet it is circling in space with only a fine and limited atmosphere surrounding it the breathable atmosphere is only 15klms thick thats not very much really is it? Have a look at a photo of earth taken from outer space that fine blue glow around it is all that protects us on this small rock.

We all need to actually think for ourselves.  This is not about choosing whose story we believe or choosing sides its about looking at the facts and making a personal and informed decision.

to ignore the basic connection between the earth's environment and atmosphere  & humans as living beings is not only arrogant and stupid it is Suicidal.