What evidence is there that significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions will cripple the economy?

Question

A common argument we see against addressing global warming is that reducing our greenhouse gas emissions significantly will cost way too much and cripple our economy.

But according to the IPCC, "Bottom-up studies suggest that mitigation opportunities with net negative costs have the potential to reduce emissions by around 6 GtCO2-eq/yr in 2030, realising which requires dealing with implementation barriers."

That's a 20% decrease in worldwide emissions, and we save money in the process!

"Both bottom-up and top-down studies indicate that there is high agreement and much evidence of substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global GHG emissions over the coming decades that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels"

"In 2050, global average macro-economic costs for mitigation towards stabilisation between 710 and 445ppm CO2-eq are between a 1% gain and 5.5% decrease of global GDP (Table SPM.7). This corresponds to slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points."

Pages 14 and 21: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

So clearly the IPCC thinks we can significantly reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions with little impact on global economies. So where's the evidence that they're wrong?

Answer 1

The IPCC is more about politics than science.  But to answer your question when they can prove that humans are responsible I will give it some thought up till now all we have is junk science that too many climatologists can't agree on.  

Not to mention that there is no proof that lowering greenhouse gases will have any significant effect at all.

Answer 2

Wait, I thought you said they were climatologists - now they're economists too?

Answer 3

That is simple....all you have to do is try running your Miller Maxstar 700 TIG welder on tater batteries instead of a nice coal fired power plant and you'll get the picture.

Miller Maxstar 700.....

http://www.millerwelds.com/products/tig/...

Tater battery......

http://www.miniscience.com/projects/Pota...

Any more questions?

Answer 4

It probably originated in a talking-points memo sent out by the coal and oil industry. They distributed it to Rush and Fox. Now it's considered fact, because Rush said it, Fox gave "independent" collaboration, and a bunch of personal blogs repeat it.

Randall - One should actually visit the IPCC web-site, if they want to gain even a minimal understanding of this topic. There you'll quickly see that there are many reports from experts in many fields (including climatology and economy).

Answer 5

Dana the only thing that is going to reduce Co2 is planting trees, grass and bushes and that will also reduce the urban heat island environment that is skewing temperature readings.

http://www.greenroofs.org/

The cutting back on fossil fuels will never happen until the Carter edicts are reversed enabling sane nuclear policies to be enacted. But this requires a president that believes in high technology solutions and a congress that will support him with a two-thirds majority to overturn those edicts. This will never happen with democrats who are dependent on big oil for their expensive campaign procedures. They do not know how to manage low cost efficient campaigns because for 70 years they could just go to the big oil spigot and draw off what the needed.

We need nuclear power plants now

We need to get started on space based solar now

But those of you who support the oil company profits which keeps the nuclear and solar power systems off the table are the problem and not any part of the solution. Every piece of supporting rhetoric you AGW adherents put out there to keep the general public in a panic just delays the day when those with the solutions can start fixing things for eternality. We know and have known for 50 years what to do and how to do it, but we have been prevented by those Carter edicts from doing it. So if you and your fellows really want this fixed and are not paid oil company shills as you seem to be vote all public offices in November any party but democrat and maybe things can start happening.

Answer 6

There isn't evidence that they're wrong. There isn't evidence that they're right. It's a best-guess estimate. They are most likely right given their assumptions.

Someone equally credible and with equal sincerity would come up with a different number with different assumptions.

Answer 7

Try using nothing powered by electricity or fuel for a week and let us know how productive you were. Not very?? Now multiply that diminished output by 300,000,000, that would be the negative effect on our economy, and yes, I would call that crippling.

Answer 8

cant help you there. following latest round of insulation our house is snug and our fuel costs about level with last years (instead of 1/3 increase), and my shares in alternative energy and the company that eco-retrofits old buildings are doing great!

Answer 9

Dear Dana Quixote,

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. is not a problem so long as it's not FORCED by the government.  You will NEVER get rid of oil because it's absolutely necessary for the military, airplanes, etc.

"Action" on "global warming" is unnecessary & CO2 is not a pollutant.  I'm sorry that throws a monkey-wrench in your little green lifestyle, but get over it.  With humans only being responsible for 1.6 W/m2 reducing human CO2 to 0 is a total waste of time in the face of natural variability.

Have you figured out the carbon footprint Russia is using to stomp Georgia and take their oil?  Call up your IPCC eggheads and fly them (no wait; take a row-boat) over to Tbilisi so they can start measuring.  The Russian Empire might not be as nice to your little green plans as us polite U.S. skeptics.

Come to think of it -- it would make a lot of sense to move the IPCC headquarters to Moscow.  Your biggest mistake is thinking that scientists and the IPCC have no agenda.

Answer 10

"So clearly the IPCC thinks we can significantly reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions with little impact on global economies".

Only climate scientists (peer reviewed of course) could possibly reach this conclusion.

Dana, you’re obviously not from a country that has committed to the Kyoto protocol.

“The Protocol also reaffirms the principle that developed countries have to pay billions of dollars, and supply technology to other countries for climate-related studies and projects”

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

In May this year the New Zealand Government estimated its financial liability (amount needed to buy carbon credits or fund overseas projects) under the Kyoto Protocol at $NZ480 million.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/l...

“The Treasury publishes regular updates of the quantum, carbon price and exchange rate data used to calculate the value of the provision for Kyoto liability reported in the Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand.

New Zealand ratified the Kyoto Protocol in December 2002. This international agreement commits New Zealand to reducing its average net emissions of greenhouse gases over 2008-2012 (the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol or CP1) to 1990 levels or to take responsibility for the difference.

The Government reports on its provision for New Zealand's obligation under the Kyoto Protocol ('the Kyoto liability') in the Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand (FSGNZ).

The estimate of New Zealand’s obligation at 31 May 2008 is $NZ480 million.”

When Treasury made this estimate, it was based on an exchange rate (Euro to $NZ) of 0.5030, and a carbon price of 11.13 Euro’s per Mton. Since then, due to currency changes (exch rate 0.46) and the rising carbon price (now 22.61 Euros), this is now $NZ1.066 Billion. New Zealand is a small country of just 4 million people.

The current estimate of our liability under the Kyoto Protocol is $250 per capita.  This debt becomes due in 2012 when governments that have signed ‘Annex 1’ of the agreement must exchange very real and very large sums of money.

Current Carbon price http://carbonpositive.net/viewarticle.as...

Current exchange rate http://www.nationalbank.co.nz/economics/...

The carbon price has no-where to go but upwards. Quite simply there are more carbon credits needed than are available. Under normal market conditions buyers would resist purchasing once the price became unattractive. In the Carbon market this is not so. Countries that have signed Annex 1 are obliged by International Treaty to purchase Carbon credits to offset the shortfall in their respective emission reduction targets (or invest equivalently in overseas in carbon reduction projects) Wikipedia lists these countries and their targets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyo... Look in the “annex” and “reduction commitment for 2012” columns. This shows which countries are financially committed, and the reductions they’ve committed to relative to a 1990 baseline.

To date New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions have not fallen, but are still rising. “The 2008 Inventory, covering the period of 1990-2006 inclusive, reported total greenhouse gas emissions in 2006 were 77.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2-e). This is an increase of 15.9 Mt CO2-e (26 per cent) over the 1990 level of 61.9 Mt CO2-e.”

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/figur...

So where does the New Zealand Government find (currently, and rising) $250 per person? In New Zealand we don’t have natural resources we can just dig up and sell overseas. The New Zealand Government has no option but to raise this money by taxation. The Government proposes to increased taxation for Transportation, Energy generation and Beef and sheep industries (yes., really, .. a ‘f**t tax’ on the beef and sheep herds).

These taxes have flow on costs for every domestic consumer item and service, and seriously damage our overseas earnings capacity by adding cost to all our exports.

New Zealand’s Emissions Trading Scheme is before parliament at the moment. Should this go through the economic impact on New Zealand will be enormous both at a personal and national level.

The USA did not, nor ever intends to ratify the Kyoto protocol. In July of 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized, the U.S. Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution 95–0, which required any such protocol to include binding targets and timetables for developing and industrialized nations and to “not result in causing harm to the United States economy”.

The bottom line on this is very simple... if you support the Kyoto Protocol and/or Emissions Trading schemes you will inevitably damage the economy and the living standards of your fellow citizens.

Do you really trust the IPCC climate scientists to tell you how to run your economy? Really? you want the United Nations to tell you how to run your own country?

(watching for the thumbs down now)

Answer 11

The IPCC recommends that we use nuclear energy as a major source of energy.  But the greenies are against this.  That shows their hypocrisy.  When the IPCC says AGw is a threat, they are the worlds leading experts.  When they say nuclear energy is the way to go, they are ignorant.   Show me one study that says we can reduce co2 emissions without nuclear energy and not hurt the economy.

Answer 12

What you socialists fail to understand is that free people do not want to be forced to follow a bunch of laws that restrict their choices and freedoms, especially when the reason is based on flimsy irresponsible junk science provided by politically biased organizations like the IPCC.

Answer 13

The IPCC is wrong.  Simple economics tells us that.  The market will move towards what is the most efficient and most profitable.  If emitting less CO2 is more profitable then that will be done.  What costs more - building a wind farm or using an existing coal fired plant?  The US has 27% of the world's proven recoverable coal.  It is very cheap and very plentiful in the US.  (I actually believe in wind energy, but it cannot replace coal by 2030)

I don't believe that reducing CO2 emmisions will "cripple the economy", but it will have a negative effect on the economy, which is why congress unanimously voted to not be party to Kyoto in 1997.   http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...

Like the US Senate, the IPCC is a political body.

Answer 14

YOU SHOULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT.

YOU SOUND LIKE YOU ARE SMARTER THAN ALL THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.

I NOMINATE YOU FOR PRES.

VOTE DANA2008!

Answer 15

People are afraid of change. You can find an expert to come up with any conclusion you are searching for. I have seen evidence that the whole going green thing will help the economy, not hurt it. People will be investing in new technologies, we well be producing less hazardous waste, and we will be conserving energy. All good things.

Answer 16

Lets presume the worst case scenario, a 5.5% reduction in GWP, and a 25% increase in population.  That would translate into a per capita income loss of about 24.5%.  Since the impact would be directly proportional to a nation's per capita income, worst case would be your children would have a standard of living of about 66% of yours, not adjusted for inflation.  These are numbers that are very close to a past economic event, The Great Depression.

Answer 17

lets put it this way, If I told you that you must throw away all your transportation, cars, bikes, scooter, rollerskates and you have to buy them all over again, would your pocketbook be able to do that?

How about, food, from now on you can only eat the food I tell you and from my store and bananas are $20 per pound, tofu is $75 per pound, you get no choices and I'm in charge of what you can buy and the price is now tripple from last year.

Answer 18

Best Answer Coming Up:

IF IT WAS REALLY CHEAPER WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO HAVE ENFORCEMENT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

Answer 19

well for starters the IPCC has inadequate evidence to prove global warning's existence in the first place. Second of all any plan to reduce emissions either involves taxes, regulations, or tax breaks for a select few which means money has to come from additional sources to keep the budget in check. Regardless someone pays and speaking hypothetically if a regulation were passed that forced oil companies to raise the cost of gas even a dime the results would be disastrous.  The increase in gas prices would cause an increase in food prices which would result in many unjustifiable deaths in the third world due to starvation. As I said though there is absolutely no scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming, it's another alarmist media scare, if you do your own research you'll see that the green's claims are absurd.

Answer 20

There is no such evidence (just like there is no real evidence "against" global warming).

But the IPCC is flat wrong, nevertheless. Their model asumes an essentially stacic technology component. Everything pooints to the exact opposite.  That break s down into two economic effects--one direct, the other indirect.

DIRECT

Investment in new technology that either produces clean energy cost-effectively (as wind power already does) or cuts fossil fuel conumption will create new jobs as the companies producing those products expand.  That means improved buiness, more jobs means more consumer spending and increased tax revenues.  All promote economic growth.

Expensive? Sure.But the expense is in the form of investment-and that returns a profit. The iPCC model treats the expense simply as a cost.

INDIRECT:

From an economic perspective, significantly cutting energy costs leaves more money in consumers pockets (ultimately we are talking hundreds of billions of dollars annually. That money will then go to buying other goods and services, stimulationg economic growth and also creating jobs.

The IPCC model is correct as far as it goes. But we are entering a technological shift--and they do not take that into account.  Historically, EVERY time a major technology shift takes place (and this is going to be one fof the biggest of all time) you get a surge of economic growth as a reslt.  That has happened with every major technology.

Answer 21

When you grossly exaggerate the consequences, you can assign any amount of savings you want to.  If we all went back to swinging in the trees, I suppose that would be a net savings as well.  LEFTISTS aways want to control and thus reduce the standard of living, especially for Americans and to a lesser extent, other rich economies.  It is nothing more than political opportunists using environmental causes to push their political agenda and relying on well meaning dupes that often are all too willing to wear their guilty badge and raise their hands in compliance and say "I want to help too".

Answer 22

As I have said before-- America is in the middle of an energy crisis. Many of the goals of GW advocates and new energy sources advocates are the same.

However-- as an example-- in today's Dallas Morning News, August 13th-- is an article about the Texas Sierra Club fighting against a low level nuclear waste dump in far West Texas. (have you ever been to far West Texas! Ha.-- lots of absolutely nothing!)-- those of us on the energy front are very cynical of environmental groups that purport to protect environment, while employing legends of lawyers to litigate anything that may assist in solving our energy issue.

I guarantee as soon as the wind farms really get going here in Texas, the environmentalists will bring lawsuit after lawsuit against the construction effort--- "probably" every endangered species known to man will be located right UNDER the wind towers! These TYPES of actions will cripple the economy and slow to a crawl any renewable or eco-friendy energy initiatives.

Dallas News article--

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/...

My Energy NOW! blog --   http://www.neighborsgo.com/blog/boatman2