Will significant greenhouse gas reductions only cost 1.5% of the US economy investment?

Question

McKinsey & Company, a business consultant group published the report called "Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Emissions: How Much at What Cost?" with The Conference Board, a research group.

The US could reduce projected 2030 emissions of greenhouse gases by between 33-50% at manageable costs to the economy, the report found. Its mid-range case found that cutting 3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent from the United States by 2030 would cost an average about $50 billion annually, or a total of $1.1 trillion.

That would represent 1.5 percent of the $77 trillion in real investment the U.S. economy is expected to make over the period, it said.

About 80 percent of the reductions could be made using technologies already proven in the United States or elsewhere in the world, the report said.

http://green.yahoo.com/news/nm/20071129/ts_nm/greenhouse_usa_mckinsey_dc.html

For those claiming it will be too expensive to tackle global warming - what do you make of this report?

By the way just as a reference, the Afgahnistan and Iraq wars have cost us about $1.6 trillion so far.

http://www.timesonline.com/articles/2007/11/27/opinion/editorials/doc47431a3e3be4f680045125.txt

Yes zion, I want to see the US economy impode since I live in the USA.

That makes a whole lot of sense.

So let's see, they have a report to support their claims, and you have one coal plant example to prove that they're wrong.

Hmm whose case is stronger? Tough call!

Answer 1

I don't suppose KcKinsey also estimated the costs of unchecked climate change as a fraction of the U.S. economy. Maybe that's too hard to do since a lot of the regional effects aren't well enough known. But some things are, like the rise in freezing level affecting area for snow accumulation, which would affect water supplies in the west. It would be interesting to see a projection of the expected costs of effects like freezing level elevation.

Answer 2

1.5%? It'll cost more than that. They have already denied a coal plant in Kansas. The implications of that are huge. We are the largest holder of coal reserves but in the name of global warming we can't buy coal from a US producer, have US contractors build a coal plant and US consumers benefit with more energy supply. This also shut down the plans for a wind farm since they were going to utilize the power lines to the coal plant. The growth of the economy will be choked--which, of course, is the REAL agenda of the alarmists.

Answer 3

1.5 percent seems very reasonable economy-wide. But, who has to pay most of that money? It's really the utility, automobile and oil industries. Guess who has the most clout in Washington, D.C.?

Answer 4

All the coal plants should adapt to PEM (plasma enhanced melters) in the future.

Answer 5

Consultants, those rip off artists will get the first billion just talking about it and making foolish predictions that wont end up true

Answer 6

Their large screen plasma TV (which will end in the trashcan in 5 years) is more important than the future of their children.

Answer 7

Hey - No one is stopping you from throwing your money at this pseudo problem.

I rather feed the hungry than support corporate welfare.

Answer 8

probably, they don't care