Global warming- what do we lose if?

Question

If you believe Al Gore and that Global Warming is real and we do nothing to stop it- we lose everything. The planet could be severely impacted/ destroyed in the next 20-50 years.

If Rush Limbaugh and the naysayers turn out to be correct and global warming is a "natural occurrence" and we attempt to fight it anyway, what do we lose?

Answer 1

Thinking outside the box is giving in to the socialist goal of manipulating us into submission.  The box is strong, global warming is fake and any attempt to 'fight it' is both a waste of money and utter foolishness.  The world has been led badly enough astray already by mostly European and Asian politicians, and of course the lefties from North America.  Enough is enough.  

Answer 2

The broad agreement among climate scientists that global temperatures will continue to increase has led some nations, states, corporations and individuals to implement actions to try to curtail global warming or adjust to it. Many environmental groups encourage individual action against global warming, often by the consumer, but also by community and regional organizations. Others have suggested a quota on worldwide fossil fuel production, citing a direct link between fossil fuel production and CO2 emissions.

There has also been business action on climate change, including efforts at increased energy efficiency and limited moves towards use of alternative fuels. One recently developed concept is that of greenhouse gas emissions trading through which companies, in conjunction with government, agree to cap their emissions or to purchase credits from those below their allowances.

The IPCC's Working Group III is responsible for crafting reports that deal with the mitigation of global warming and analyzing the costs and benefits of different approaches. In the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, they conclude that no one technology or sector can be completely responsible for mitigating future warming. They find there are key practices and technologies in various sectors, such as energy supply, transportation, industry, and agriculture, that should be implemented to reduced global emissions. They estimate that stabilization of carbon dioxide equivalent between 445 and 710 ppm by 2030 will result in between a 0.6 percent increase and three percent decrease in global gross domestic product.

Many estimates of aggregate net economic costs of projected damages and benefits from climate change across the globe are now available. These are often expressed in terms of the social cost of carbon (SCC), the aggregate of future net benefits and costs, due to global warming from carbon dioxide emissions, that are discounted to the present. Peer-reviewed estimates of the SCC for 2005 have an average value of US$43 per tonne of carbon (tC) (i.e., US$12 per tonne of carbon dioxide, tCO2) but the range around this mean is large. For example, in a survey of 100 estimates, the values ran from US$-10 per tonne of carbon (US$-3 per tonne of carbon dioxide) up to US$350/tC (US$95 per tonne of carbon dioxide.)

IPCC TAR (Synthesis Report) suggested values of $78bn to $1141bn annual mitigation costs, amounting to 0.2% to 3.5% of current world GDP (which is around $35 trillion), or 0.3% to 4.5% of GDP if borne by the richest nations alone. As economic growth is expected to continue, the percentage would fall. In terms of cost per tonne of carbon emission avoided, the range (for a target of 550ppm) is $18 to $80.

the present value of benefits from mitigation under the Kyoto Protocol would be $120 billion, far below the likely costs. "Other studies reach similar conclusions".In addition to avoiding the costs of the business-as-usual scenario, mitigation actions can bring other benefits, depending on factors such as the technology used. These include, for example, the reduced economic impact from oil supply disruptions and/or price rises, if mitigation reduces oil dependence. This may be of particular benefit to non-oil-exporting developing countries, which suffer greater economic impact from oil price rises. Co-benefits from ending deforestation include protection of biodiversity, benefits for indigenous people, research and development possibilities, tourism, and some protection from extreme weather events.  

Answer 3

We lose liberty, the government decides what we can and can't do on issues as small as what lightbulb we purchase.

We lose wealth.  All estimates of the impact of carrying out pointless global warming legislation point to a huge negative impact on the economy.

Answer 4

But it is his own big oil company profits that Gore is working to protect by preventing the real solutions to world energy problems. Why, well I will tell you! Gore and his tame NASA science failure cooked this whole con up while he was in the senate holding down his dad’s old seat and not getting rich fast enough for his tastes. They got together through his partner at Occidental oil and through him with the top oilman in the world and cooked this whole dirty mess up. The big oil boys were angry with Reagan holding down the world price of oil to break the financial back of the Soviet Union and end the cold war.

It took them almost 20 years to get all the details worked out and all the marketing tricks operational but finally in the last couple of years the profits have been rolling in wholesale and are having a difficult time finding a way to use so much extra money. The big boss that financed the whole thing is buying up the stocks of his companies raising their market price. This is why we have had several hundred point stock and commodity price fluctuations as they worked the market to buy cheap on the bottom and sell at the top of the next cycle. Few if any of you people can see the whole picture of what is happening in this con.

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2301/Some_Inc...

I can see most of it because I was educated in seeing these types of operations by some of the best in the world and I still have not comprehended all the fine details.

Answer 5

I can't imagine the planet supporting this greedy and wasteful population and surviving it. In any case if we can't get it right then maybe we deserve the consequences.  

Answer 6

impacted, yes.  destroyed no, unless there's a major war.  which could happen.

money.  lots of money.

Answer 7

So you'd like a complete overhaul of our economic system for...  a guess?

You cell phone, computer & mom's car don't run on good intentions, kid

ADDENDUM - If you truly believe we're set to "lose" Florida or New York if we don't "act", you're hopelessly lost.

Answer 8

Global warming is a natural occurrence. A very large majority of the "scientists" who are saying it is man caused are either idiots or they are being payed or supported by the industries that are making a big profit from this false information. Just think how much money is being earned in the sale of a solar panel. If you are concerned about the carbon level in the atmosphere just plant a couple of trees and the trees will use the carbon in there natural life cycle.  

Answer 9

We don't lose anything. No jobs will be lost because we wouldn't be reducing the number of industries, just changing them. It's not like the car industry will just suddenly disappear. We'll be making new cars instead. Basically where the old businesses fall new ones will be born (e.g. Oil industry changes to nuclear electric). Always the government won't be losing any money, under the right administration, because we will be taking it from the people that already have a major surplus. It is stupid to not do anything about global warming. There is complete evidence to show that parts of the earth are getting destroyed because of the global climate change, and even if it is just a natural process we know that CO2 can cause global climate change so why not help reduce them and save vital parts of the earth.