Is it worth the cost to reduce CO2 levels?

Question

I've often heard the claim that reducing CO2 as the UN and EU want won't have a big impact on the US, that it's a small price to pay. Here are the real costs.

The EPA estimates that complying with S.2191, the Lieberman-Warner Act of 2008 would cost a lot. By 2050 it would reduce US GDP by $2,856,000,000,000, almost $2.9 trillion annually by 2050. And the result would be a net reduction of just over 25 ppm of CO2, by 2095. That includes increasing nuclear power generation by 150% by 2050, something that may not occur.

Since China has indicated they won't sign a treaty with such large reductions, whatever is left of our manufacturing base will find it much more attractive to relocate rather than to take costly action to meet the mandates in this bill. How many jobs would that cost? A 25 ppm reduction is tiny compared to the increases from China and other countries so would the cost in terms of tax dollars, economic and energy reductions and lost jobs be worth it?

Answer 1

I wonder how much it would cost to move New York City, Miami, and significant other populated areas currently near sea-level?  With some glaciologists now estimating much higher sea-level rises than the conservative IPCC estimate, this may not be as far fetched as you'd think.

Answer 2

China is ready to take an absolute emission cap just as the US if the US choses to do so.

Source: several articles at www.pointcarbon.com and www.co2-handel.de

----------------------------------

The number of 25ppm you state is misleading as it is the contribution of the US. The EU has already indicated that it will take a stronger committment if the US agrees on mandatory caps too. Other D5 (largest 5 developing countries) are also opened to the idea to take a strong comittment if the US does.

The EPA analysis states that climate change with a US participation can be limited to 2°C

------------------------------------

The REAL REASON FOR HEAVY INDUSTRY JOBS BEING LOST (please note that the US lost plenty without signing the Kyoto  Protocol and instead did not win high-tech environemtal jobs

- the demand for industrial and construction material is in China (50% of the cement worldwide, 35% of the steel, etc..) How many new bridges does the US build per year compared to China?

- the US steel industry does not need to produce primary steel still plenty of scrap is available to be recycled

- the level of automation of US is higher and the productivity higher requiring less employees

- the improved engineering of the last 20 years largely cut the need for heavy industry products (e.g. a new supermarket structure is build with only 50% the steel you would have needed 20 years ago...  blame engineers)

Answer 3

I never thought I would agree with the Chinese on anything, but their views on man-made global warming are making me me rethink that.  I think we should talk a lot and do absolutely nothing.

You can spend your money on this fool's errand, but you will have a hard time spending a penny of mine if I have anything to say about it!

Answer 4

Yes.

The costs of unreduced global warming are substantially higher.  Instead of a 2% reduction in GDP, we're talking 20%.

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

China is negotiating, and they'll be tough.  But they'll come around.  It's dawned on them that causing a worldwide depression with global warming will not be good for business.

Answer 5

That's US GDP if we continue on with the same old, outdated technologys we are using now.   If we were to move ahead like every other country is doing and embrace new technologies, we would most likely be far ahead of where we are now.   Have you noticed truck/SUV sales lately?   They are down over 50% from this time last year.   Blame that on environmentalists and global warming freaks if you want, but the fact is people don't want the expensive, gas hog vehicles anymore.    Car companies have to change with the times too, or they will be a much lower part of the GDP in years to come.

Answer 6

There is no correlation between co2 and temperatures.  Co2 has been increasing for the last 10 years while temperatures have remained steady or declining.

There is a big cost to trying to reduce co2.  Currently the State of California is trying to get control of every home thermostat so they can adjust it at the gvmt office.

Look at the price of gas.  This phony "global warming" is costing us plenty, in money and in freedoms.