what type of economic impact can global warming have on our country?

Answer 1

Well it will absolutely have a profound impact if we do not act as responsible americans. the massive amount of trees cut down for development everyday, and increased pollution by factories are increasing pollution and global warming by immense amonts. without trees to absorb the carbon dioxide the rate of global warming will speed alarmingly. I do believe that we need to seek responsible development of america for the future, move towards efficient housing and mixed use developments that will really be the future of america to help cope without the neccessity of a car. suburban life is no longer sustainable in america. I do believe there are ways to increase efficiency and it will spur new clean industries in america. If nothing is done sea levels will rise, towns will be destroyed, weather patterns will change dramatically and pollution will be rampant and worse than ever. you can see the exact effects global warming will have on our economy by not acting to control the waste and pollution we as americans produce everyday

Answer 2

it depends on what the government does. If the Clinton Administration had signed the Kyoto Protocol when it came out, then it would have cost the US $400 billion dollars a year, gas prices would rise 14 to 66 cents a gallon by 2010, electricy prices would go up 20 to 86%, and there would be mass inflation and crippling of the world economy. Let's say that a law is passed banning carbon emissions in the US by 50%. Every industrial market has to then spend more money to keep their place running without releasing CO2. I have heard some pro global warming people say that there are easy solutions that are better for the environment yet cost less. That is not true. Things like wind energy would cost way more than using fossil fuels. And solar panels aren't that efficient for their high cost and low power. To supply the US with electricity, you would need a solar panel the size of Texas and constant maintenance. It's like the whole recycling/trash deal. If recycling objects is cheaper and more efficient, then why doesn't everybody do it? I don't see any difference between throwing something in a trash can than a recycling bin. That's because it is more convenient, not because they want to trash the earth. So back to the industry. Now that they have to pay more to keep their business going, they have to charge more for their products. Think about it, practically every thing you can buy goes through some kind of industrial process, even food from farms that are cleaned and milk that is pasteurized. Now that we have this increase in inflation, the value of our currency goes down, and people take all of their money from the banks, causing another Great Depression. From here, the industry has 2 ways to go. One, it either outsources and go overseas, where labor is cheaper, they can release CO2, and gain more profit. The trouble is that jobs are lost here in the US, causing a massive gain in the unemployment rate. Since people are now living off of welfare checks, the amount of money the US has to spend goes down as well. The second option is to stay here and increase the prices on their products, driving down the value of currency, and causing massive job loss as so much of our country is in poverty now, an increase in prices will only drive more into poverty. Then, you have to think about foreign countries. A lot of underdeveloped countries depend on the US for food from crops or other more industrial products. With this Great Depression, that will push underdeveloped countries down even more, and cause a global decrease in economy.

Answer 3

If the practicers of Gore-ology and leftist ideals get their way (carbon credits, pollution taxes, etc.) then it'll obviously be a bad thing, as other countries have much more lax policies on pollution and are cheaper to operate in to begin with.

However, if "exploited" properly, this could be a stepping stone for more competition between companies like car manufacturers, industry, textiles and of course, "Big Oil". If the current attitudes stay the way they are about global warming--whether it's true or not, people still do what they can--then we'll see more and more companies coming out with better looking and better performing hybrids, more biodegradable products, cleaner burning fuels or maybe even hydrogen at last. We'll see though.

Answer 4

Here in the UK, the recent Stern report reckoned that dealing with global warming to an extent which might stop it getting considerably worse would cost about 1% of global GDP, but that doing less, or doing nothing, would cost a larger percentage of GDP due to the havoc global warming would wreak on the global economy in terms of the changes industries would be forced to make (farming, for example, would be especially hard hit, and rising sea levels would leave industrial zones in many coastal areas unusable, forcing relocation and rebuilding).

The weather is very likely to be a lot less predictable and extreme weather a lot more common, which would cause problems for global transport networks. These effects would be felt globally - remember it's not just the effect on the countries where we live, but on our trading partners as well - if their economies are hard hit, they have less money to spend on our goods.

Answer 5

The experts are currently debating each other on this point.

Information that has been published to date includes the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Climate Change 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is the fourth in a series of such reports. The IPCC was established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

Two of the three Fourth Assessment reports (working groups I and II) have been been published so far.

Answer 6

global warming can shift the ocean currents and wind patterns that cause changes to climate and weather. in some areas this will mean more rain and less in others. some areas will be warmer and some cooler.

people have the ability to adapt through things like air conditioning and heating, but plants and animals do not.

a shift in rain or temperature patterns could mean, for example, that the area where wheat could be grown might shift more toward canada and that would have an impact of the economy in the wheat-growing plains states in the mid-west.

animal ranges would also shift if the vegetation they depend upon for survival ceased to exist and they were unable to migrate to where it would begin to grow.

these are simple examples, but you need to remember that nature works in a balance that, once disturbed, can cause changes in a domino-effect manner.

there's also changes like sea-level increases that could have an economic effect on cities like new york, los angeles and miami, but that would take a long time and not be as sudden as the change in weather.

Answer 7

Well, global warming afects the oceans, right? So if the oceans rise too much, you've just lost part of the whole east and west coast, a major source of our income.

Answer 8

RESEARCH about the STERN REPORT !

Everything is in it. He calculates the cost of inaction compared to the cost of pursuing an active policy

Answer 9

You don't want to know ... it's pretty bad ...

:(

lets not wait to get to that point ;-)