Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
According to this report, the consequences on the economy will be devastating if more is not done on climate change now:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061030/...global_warming
Britain issued a sweeping report Monday warning that the Earth faces a calamity on the scale of the world wars and the Great Depression unless urgent action is taken.
The report said unabated climate change would eventually cost the equivalent of between 5 percent and 20 percent of global gross domestic product each year. The report by Sir Nicholas Stern, a senior government economist, represents a huge contrast to the U.S. government's wait-and-see policies. |
I under stand that, I also understand that the same author of the report is the same person who believe LHR Airport in the UK shouldnt expand yet England should expand its Global Economic reach.
If you take the report as is then of course, spending 1-5% of GDP on combating climate change now is more cost effective than 5-20 down the road. My post was that what are people willing to spend to combat it because it will actually take dollars and cents away from current programs.
If people are ok with an across the board cut of 1-5% of GDP then thats fine, 1-5% less Health Care money, less school, less roads, less military less social assistance, less help for small business etc.
I am under the thinking (however wrong that this may be) that the amount of pollutants now adays from our emissions are a small percentage (say 5-10) of the cause of Global Warming or why the Ozone is deteriorating. I also believe that Science will eventually find a way to replenish the ozone. Now that may sound cooky but I think it might be cheaper (less than the trillion+ being currently asked for).
I still believe that an automatic increase of emmision standards so that todays cars would use 85% less fuel is the way to go - or at least far better than some glorified UN/IOC Pork Barreling effort. The benefits are multifacited. It would automatically reduce GHG in a measureable way, it would reduce the money for Global Terrorism, it would be an automatic boost to the ailing NA auto sector, it would also save me a bundle on gas every year, the down side is that more idiots would live in Airdrie and drive downtown to work and then bitch about the traffic and parking costs
Also, even the mention of higher emission standards for automobiles in Canada brought the rath of Dalton Hell upon the Fed Cons earlier this year for even mentioning it.
The problem is the Daultons of the world - all for manzy panzy environment stuff so long as it doesnt cost them anything, ie Kyoto and car plants being exempt.
MYK