How much money is put into global warming?

Question

I couldn't find it anywhere.... can you please help me?

Please sight your sources.

thank you!! =]

Answer 1

We have 50 trillion dollars worth of stuff that runs on gas, coal and Natural gas. We need 20 trillion dollars worth of renewable energy to fix GW. We are not even coming close. The world is spending about 50 billion, California want use to spend 5 billion in a bond that costs 10 billion over its life. You can get more economic information at CoolingEarth.org

Answer 2

enough money to stop starvation in the world...

We need to get our priorities straight.

Answer 3

I'd say there's billions being spent, but that money is divided up into research and action through corporations, universities, local government, federal government, consortiums and non-profits.

"Clearly global warming will carry enormous costs. Taller levees. Higher food prices. Treating malaria patients in New Delhi and maybe New York. One estimate put the tab higher than the combined cost of both World Wars and the Great Depression. What we need to do is make the markets foresee that cost and act accordingly."

The 2nd link demonstrates how much is being spent on the campaign to disinform.

The 3rd link is the context for the quote from the article Bill McKibbon wrote in the May/June issue of Mother Jones.

Answer 4

Most of the money we spend on fuels is giving us some global warming. So our spending is mostly in the wrong direction.

Answer 5

AS FAR AS I KNOW NONE. THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IS IGNORING GLOBAL WARMING. IT SEEMS THEY HAVE ONE FOOT IN THE GRAVE AND DONT CARE ABOUT THE YOUNGER PEOPLE. THEY ONLY HAVE MEETINGS WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTS TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING NONE OF THEM KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT. THE CONGRESS TOLD THE  E.P. A. THAT THEY WANT PROOF THAT THE EXHAUST, GREENHOUSES GASES, CARBONS, CO2'S AND SMOKE ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING, BUT THE  E.P.A. CANT BECAUSE THATS NOT THE CAUSE, AND AS THEY EXPLAINED TO ME LAST YEAR. THE  E.P.A. SAID THEY DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT CAUSES G.W.. STILL THE PRESIDENT DOES'NT CARE. HIS HOME WAS CHANGED OVER TO A EFFICIENT HOME FOR GLOBAL WARMING, WITH ONE EXCEPTION, WHEN THE EXCRUCIATING HEAT COMES VERY FEW HOMES ON EARTH WILL STILL BE STANDING AND HIS IS'NT ONE OF THEM.  HAVE A NICE DAY.

Answer 6

The U.S. has stayed out of all treaties such as Kyoto, so we've spent virtually nothing  so far.  Of course now there are many proposals to raise money under the banner of "do something about global warming", but a piecemeal solution that does not include developing countries cannot be effective:

"Global problems require global solutions," said EDF atmospheric physicist Dr. Michael Oppenheimer. "For the treaty to be an environmental success, all greenhouse gases must be reduced and a pathway must be created toward the participation of all nations."

http://www.edf.org/pressrelease.cfm?Cont...

In spite of that, here is the current proposal cruising through Congress:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles...

One analysis of that bill by CRA International, an international business consulting firm, predicts the Lieberman-Warner bill could cost $4 trillion to $6 trillion over the next 40 years, according to an editorial in the November 11 Washington Times.

If that bill were passed and made law, the tax would cost every man, woman and child – more than 303 million Americans – $494 a year, a significant burden on the U.S. economy.

“There is no effective way to meaningfully reduce emissions without negatively impacting a large part of an economy,” Greenspan wrote. “Net, it is a tax. If the cap is low enough to make a meaningful inroad into CO2 emissions, permits will become expensive and large numbers of companies will experience cost increases that make them less competitive. Jobs will be lost and real incomes of workers constrained.”

Granted, the $100 billion or so per year that this new global warming tax would cost is far, far less than the nearly $1.5 trillion that's needed every year to fund the U.S. military expenses (about 54% of our federal income tax funds):

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piecha...

The problem I have with both of these expenditures is that the United States government is not accountable for the results of its programs.  We can see that they fail time and again, yet we keep trowing money at crooked politicians, as if they won't just waste it in exchange for campaign contributions (bribes)!

Answer 7

YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF GLOBAL WARMING AND COOLING HISTERIA...

evrey time the tempeture of the earth changes a little there is doomsday people shouting the end of the world

The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, amidst hysteria about the dangers of a NEW ICE AGE. The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s.

Three months before, on January 11, The Washington Post told readers to “get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come,” in an article titled “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age.” The article quoted climatologist Reid Bryson, who said “there’s no relief in sight” about the cooling trend.

Journalists took the threat of another ice age seriously. Fortune magazine actually won a “Science Writing Award” from the American Institute of Physics for its own analysis of the danger. “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed,” Fortune announced in February 1974

--------------------------------------...

there is nothing wrong with the earth!!!! it just scare mongers predicting doomsday events for they can get more research money!!! reporting the earth tempature is going up but it pretty common does not get more money but saying the earth is dieing and we are all doomed does...

there is global warming on many planets other than earth...this is natural for example

the global warming on Mars is a well-known story. Between 1975 and 2000, Mars warmed up by 0.65 Celsius degrees, much faster than Earth: see Nature 2007. pluto and venus and other are also warming...

--------------------------------------...

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

--------------------------------------...

worst case scenareo.....if all the polar ice caps melted we would just have to move from some of california florida new york city and almost all of lousiana and other low lying areas humans will adapt...other areas up north would become more habitable

earth has had many ice ages where ice has covered much more of the planet and global warming has accurred, long before we invented the car...and started to use oil and coal...

--------------------------------------...

Here is the text of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global COOLING. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels.

NEWS WEEK STORY...

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

—PETER GWYNNE with bureau reports