Global warming may cost $7 trillion next decade. Do you believe GWB, says stopping it would wreck our economy?

Question

Here's the link to the article, take a look yourself!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061029/sc_afp/britainenvironment_061029152831

Global warming may cause a global recession due to droughts, refugees, etc. Are you ready to be laid off or take a pay cut if it happens?

According to the article, every dollar spent fighting global warming saves $20 in the future; that's a pretty good return on investment. Can you think of any other investment in our economy that has such a good pay off?

xox_bass_xox - you're absolutely right that it isn't certain, just more likely than not.

On the other hand, with a price tage this big, are you sure it's a good idea to wait until wer're certain? The smart thing is to act on the most likely outcome, particularly when it is extremely expensive.

Zak "All those environmental doomsday predictions" - perhaps you could cite some if you think they are so prevalent.

99% of the climate scientists support our understanding of global warming.

If you care to cite some doomsday prediciton of the past, perhaps you could also look up how few scientists supported it at the time.

There is no comparison between whatever predictions you are thinking of and our current situation. Do a little research before you form your opinion, next time.

Answer 1

The problem with global warming is that it is what economists call a global externality. Therefore, if the US (or Australia) spends money reducing emissions, each $1 spent might generate $20 of benefit to the earth, but the country that has spent the money might only get $0.50 of this benefit. Would you invest $20 on an investment that will benefit a group of 10 unknown strangers $2.50 each if you persoanally were only going to get $5 of your initial investment back? Would it change your answer if teh strangers were going to receive $3 each and you only get 5c back?

One country stopping emissions by itself is relatively pointless. Emerging countries such as China, India etc are increasiong their emissions much more quickly and have the potential to overtake the emissions of developed countries over the next few decades. However, these countries are not required to do anything about this by the Kyoto Protocol.

Therefore, this is a good example of the situation that economists and game theorists refer to as a 'prisoner's dilemma'. The incentive for each individual country is to do nothing, since doing something makes them worse off. However, if every country could cooperate, then every country could be better off. This raises the question as to how to get every country to cooperate and there are no magic answers. Countries have been trying for decades to get rid of trade protection and tariffs etc even though doing so will mean that all countries are better off. Unfortunately getting countries to agree to cooperate on this sort of thing is extremely difficult. (Which is why I am glad that there was really only 2 major powers involved in the cold war - as more countries get nuclear weapons, controlling proliferation will get much harder.)

The other things is that some countries will benefit from global warming. I hate winters in the city where I live! But seriously, increased rainfal in tropical areas will improve farmability of land in these regions, while droughts will reduce arability of traditional farming land.

While I don't know the answer, I agree that global warming is an important problem. Meanwhile, I am making most of the good economic times at present to save up so that I can afford a really good airconditioner and to reinforce my house against ever stronger storms when it starts to have a really significant impact.

Answer 2

"Global warming may cost $7 trillion next decade"

Saddam MAY have WMD
>>Therefore, we should invade.

I love how science has evolved into things that MAY happen, as opposed to verifiable repeatable experimentation.
I just love it.

If this world would have reacted to every doomsday environmental prediction over the last 40 years, the planet would be bankrupt by now.

But this time it is serious. All those other times, it was just people running their mouths.
Enjoy your paranoia.

.

Answer 3

I would like to point out to you that you are saying ' global warming may cause.........' Nobody really knows for sure that's why you say that it may cause something to happen. What if it doesn't? Maybe global warming is a good thing. I'm not saying that it is but just pointing out that nothing is for sure.

Answer 4

Some of what we dont see is the information about how much the large merchants all over the earth stands to gain in relocating huge cities ,resorts,and on and on .It has already started ,large chunks of money are already gone into their hands because of flooding ,tides,run off's .Billions of dollars never got to devestated people.Take notice ,watch, it is subtle.

Answer 5

he's already got us 4 trillion in debt, compared to clinton's 3 trillion to the good. what's another 7 trillion? that is the way that g.w.b. thinks. just print some more. the mints are on 3 shifts as we speak.