What would happen to the world economy if wealthy nations really reduced greenhouse gas by 95%?

Question

While the global warming sounds pretty horrible - I gotta think that a global depression by actually reducing energy use that much would be equally horrible.

Answer 1

We would be sent into an ice age. Greenhouse gases are what keeps the planet warm. Eliminating 95% of water vapor and CO2 would trash the planet.

Answer 2

Depends on if we find a "replacement" such as biofuels or other energy sources. If the wealthy nations just "banned" 95% of the carbon production this minute, we would lack the ability to produce and distribute the food we need to survive.

Currently the US uses 17% of our fossil fuel for food production (growing processing and shipping). Sure we could improve that efficiency in the long term but as it now stands the 95% reduction would disrupt food to the point there would be mass starvation. Assuming that "some" other fossil fuel energy will continue to be used for human survival, economy will be less of a factor than just keeping the population in the wealthy world alive after such a major (sudden) reduction.

The changes in the economy of the US/europe would most likely be simplified to the rate of one bullet for a loaf of bread.

Less drastic reductions 20-30% are possible over a short term without social colapse, but only a 90%+ reduction will really "stop" global warming. Over the longer term 50 or more years into the future 90% or more may be possible if replacement energy sources are developed but even then it would be a major effort.

Answer 3

Depends on how we get there.

A crash program in another 10-20 years when we're desperate would be devastating to the economy, although it would be necessary. But if we start now and phase in various energy conservation techniques (not not doing things, but doing them more efficiently), alternative energy sources, CO2 capture techniques, etc. over the next 50 years or so, we'd be fine. We'll still have to cope with some effects of global warming, but we can also do that.

It's no longer useful to debate the reality of global warming, because scientific data has settled that. But the debate over how to reduce it effectively and how to balance prevention/response efforts is a very worthy one.

Answer 4

The whole issue of "global warming" is a total hoax. The "green house gas" which outweighs by quantity any other gas by a factor of thousands is water vapor.

"global warming" is a political ideology whose sole function is to remove manufacturing jobs from industrialized countries and put them in 3rd world countries. It's an excuse to instill global socialism.

Currently the entire country of china has what NASA calls "the brown cloud" over the country. They pollute so badly that in some cities like Shanghai, you can't even see the sun at noon.

But amazingly enough, China was excluded from the Kyoto protocol when they tried to force the US to sign on.

Read more on global warming, it's a complete nonsensical POLITICAL movement.

Answer 5

The global economy would collapse in a crash that would make all past global depressions look like the best of times.

Answer 6

We could not cut it 25% without it being a real impact especially on the poor.

Answer 7

Think of it like cholesterol , there are two types good and bad.
The answer is to increase the good green house gasses thereby removing the bad.

Answer 8

Think of it as the Great Depression on steroids.

Answer 9

Billions of people would starve or freeze to death. Thanks for asking.