Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
The US spends 4% of GDP on defence and nicholas stern suggests it will only cost 1% of GDP to tackle AGW?
The U.S. needs to ensure that its armed forces receive sufficient funding. While funding levels should be determined by needs and requirements, they could be established at 4 percent of GDP without harming the U.S. economy.
You are forgetting that many countries around the world are already reducing greenhouse gas emissions or are planning to do so with Australia planning a 20% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020 and a 50% reduction by 2050. Australia will do this through efficiency which will actually save money. Australia will also build wind farms and solar arrays. This will cost money but it will be offset by the amount of money generated locally through companies who will generate jobs and internationally by selling the technology and building overseas projects. Roaring 40s an Australian wind power generation company has just built enough wind turbines in China.
Therefore one must consider the cost savings and money generated by clean energy.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1654357.htm
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKHKG313172...
Measures to reduce emissions can, in the main, be achieved at starkly low costs especially when compared with the costs of inaction. Indeed some, such as reducing emissions by 30 per cent from buildings by 2020, actually contribute positively to GDP, said Executive Director Achim Steiner of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) which, together with the World Meteorological Organization, established the IPCC.
6 Answers
- BobLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
Yes, you're right.
Campbelp2002 - This plan will reduce global warming enough that we can fairly easily cope with the remainder. It goes into great detail about how much it will reduce global warming, how much that will cost (there actually are a number of scenarios), and how much it will cost to deal with the remaining effects.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,4...
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf
It convincingly shows that doing something is way less expensive than doing nothing, even assuming wide error margins for the estimates. . It was developed by hundreds of scientists and economists working together.
watchout - The largest greenhouse gas is water vapor, but it CANNOT cause global warming. Excess water vapor falls out as precipitation. Excess CO2 stays in the atmosphere for many years and causes global warming. More here:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/...
The wiki article you cite lists a few scientists. But thousands of them support mainstream global warming science.
- 1 decade ago
One more important fact is that by slowing this process down, we are not only risking the consequences from global warming to become worse, but it will also be more expensive and harder to achieve the necessary changes the longer we wait to act.
Suppose the skeptics are wrong, which is unfortunately the most reasonable scenario, then they will thus have contributed to more, and stronger regulations and costs within a few years ahead.
- 1 decade ago
campbelp2002 is correct for the most part.
Even the most aggressive suggestions to curb global warming will have a negligible affect.
And the Global Warming fear mongers admit that!
(read the IPCC report in detail)
Because almost all greenhouse gases occur naturally, it is highly unlikely that humans are the principal cause anyway.
Go here for the data and more info, and for a long list of scientists that believe GW is a natural process:
- campbelp2002Lv 71 decade ago
If Nicholas Stern says that then he is wrong. At least if he means totally stopping and even reversing the rise of CO2 in the air he is wrong, because stopping that will take reducing use of coal and oil by 90% and that will cost WAY more than 4% of GDP to do. If "trackling" means doing some token reductions to appease the liberals while having no actual effect on the CO2 levels, then maybe we could do that. But why waste any money at all if the effect will be negligible?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
Bob, you are dead wrong about water vapor, it can most definitely cause GW.
What, you think water vapor goes away and doesnt come back?
You're spouting a political slogan than is not scientifically factual.
Read this in detail so you can get a little more educated:
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhou...
And the following sources listed below
Source(s): b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998 Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005 Professor of Geology-- Carleton University Ottawa, Canada Alternate link: f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant by the ecoEnquirer, 2006 Alternate link: g. Air and Water Issues by Freedom 21.org, 2005 Citation: Bjorn Lomborg, p. 259. Also: Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling, Jr. The Satanic Gases, Clearing the Air About Global Warming (Washington, DC: CATO Institute, 2000), p. 25. h. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming? by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001 Alternate link: i. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65 Link: - GengiLv 51 decade ago
i agree, humans should spend less on killing each other and more on protecting the planet. what skeptics forget that it will create jobs and stimulate economic growth.
watchout...
you are forgetting about carbon sinks. most of the CO2 you are talking about is from respiration which needs glucose which comes from the atmosphere originality so it dose not effect atmospheric levels by much.
