According to a report prepared by Ex-World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern, in collaboration with the British Government, and released by Tony Blair...
It will take 1% of global GDP annually to address anthropogenic climate change.
If no action is taken, given time, the toll of climate change will be 20% of current day GDP. In effect, we will enter a stage similar to that of the world wars and the Great Depression.
2007-02-24 01:46:34
·
answer #1
·
answered by justin_at_shr 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
There will really be two effects.
The first is that governments will erroneously implement restrictions and procedures intended to thwart the increase in global temperatures at the urging of misguided environmental organizations and the financially motivated third-world-controlled UN. This will seriously strap global economies which is to say it will seriously degrade the standard of living of the lower and middle economic classes.
The second will be that, after imposing the economic hardships associated with the attempt at climate mitigation, global warming will continue unabated since it is not human caused. This will be the “second wave” onslaught to the global economies where enormous government expenditures will be required to relocate vast numbers of people, industries, and agriculture in response to flooding and other long-term changes in local geographies.
These “second wave” costs will also be borne by the middle and lower economic classes who will rebel and demand relief from the wealthy. This will lead to an abrupt change in political structures worldwide where market-driven democracies will morph into socialism.
Without the economic motivation provided by market economies, the “innovators” will become less prolific and technological advancement will decline leading to even greater deleterious climatic problems. This will eventually lead to massive food and medical shortages culminating in the death of over half of the world’s population from famine and wars..
The survivors will fragment into smaller, state-sized groups jealously protecting their own natural resources with frequent skirmishes between neighboring enclaves in attempts to seize territory and survival advantage.
2007-02-24 01:59:07
·
answer #2
·
answered by Dr.T 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Check out the Stern Review on the economics of climate change, which released its report in October 2006. This study was commissioned by the British government and coordinated by economist Nicholas Stern, and is the most complete evaluation of the economic effects of climate change to date.
The report's main conclusion is that if no action is taken to prevent climate change, it will cost between 5 to 20% of global GDP "now and forever". The good news is that the necessary action to stabilize CO2 levels will cost only around 1% of global GDP, if strong action is taken now.
2007-02-24 01:49:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by kevinb 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
everything
economy and ecology walk hand in hand
check back in history all civilizations at the hight of their renaisance had a very impressive agriculture
so the econmy depends onenvironmenta conditions
take away the soil or the harvests and the econmoy colapses
history is full of proof of this
one degree rise in temperature means 10% crop loss
rising seas flood arable lands ,which means crop loss
in china, thousands of what used to be farmers are running for their lives from the dust storms that have burried their towns and turned their lands into dessert,the globe where they were got to hot for them .
and instead of producing food they are now needing it from some where else,and they will drastically effect the world food prices when they start buying water in the form of grains ,at any cost destabalising governments, in some countries ,could be the result
(are you seeing more Chinese around interested in agricultural lands ,we do here in Mexico)
to produce one ton of maize requires 1000 tons of water
the chineese when buying maize are in relity buying water
global warming already is drastically affecting food production ,suffering from desertification ,consequently crop loss
and all of this is just the beginning
a very good book which analises the relation between ecomomy and ecology
is Lester E Brown book a planet under sress Plan B he is the director and founder of the global institute of Environment in the United states .he has compiled a report based on all the satalite information available from NASA,and all the information that has
come from Universities and American embassies WORLD WIDE ,
Plan B has been trans lated into 50 languages and won the best book award in 2003.
2007-02-24 17:36:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
worldwide Warming is an environmental vogue. our atmosphere runs on the potential provided with the aid of the sunlight. All existence gets the potential had to stay promptly or no longer promptly from the sunlight. The sunlight supplies potential to the atmosphere. plant life turn that potential into sugars with the aid of photosynthesis. Animals get nutrition potential from plant life. Any leftover potential from the sunlight radiates returned into area, generally as warmth. the topic with CO2 is that it shall we gentle conflict with the aid of it even nonetheless it would not permit warmth conflict with the aid of it. So the sunshine from the sunlight hits the Earth, however the surplus warmth potential would not radiate off into area. to place it yet in a various way: The sunlight is the IN door, area is the OUT door; CO2 has nailed the OUT door close. This planet has a extensive warmth "sink" (a sink absorbs issues); WATER. All that extra warmth is gathering interior the oceans. For an thought how lots potential has been absorbed so a techniques see the link. A one degree upward thrust in ocean temperature represents the potential of a million.3 billion atomic bombs. That potential will become area of the "water cycle" of the planet Earth, area of the climate. you have seen each and all of the information casts with regard to the undesirable climate, tornadoes wiping out cities, blizzards shutting down highways and airports, lots rain on the west coast that it rather is inflicting huge land slides, the substantial states flooding, New Orleans destroyed with the aid of a single typhoon. The extra potential the oceans soak up, the extra undesirable climate happens and extra residences and autos and vegetation get destroyed. changing those residences and autos and dropping those vegetation costs the economic equipment billions of greenbacks in line with year in lost production. understand now? .
2016-11-25 20:39:52
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Mostly positive ones. Canada and Russia would benefit. Temperate regions would have a longer growing season.
2007-02-24 02:52:21
·
answer #6
·
answered by k_e_p_l_e_r 3
·
0⤊
0⤋