What is the cost of global warming? What is the cost of adjusting to it?

The heat gets major publicity. Why? You already know the answer to that. The downstream media is a darling of the politicians. Global Warming hysteria made lots of money in its conception. They want to bring it to full term and really profit. Know who will be paying the bills, don't you? Me and you.

What say we boycott their scheme and watch the weather, just like we always have, after the news of the day, but before the sports. When climate changes came in large regions, people made changes in their life as needed. Sometimes the changes were major. Sometimes there was loss of life, sorry to say. We can't prevent every mishap. That's what compassion is for. We will help the Russians adapt to the heat wave, probably a whole lot more than they helped with any weather/climate problem that we have had. But ascribe to the scheme to bilk every human being out of $4,000 per year just because of a half-degree rise in temperature in a century? Puhleeze.

You've hit on the tough topic. Also, who should pay the costs, who will bear the consequences if there is no mitigation, WHEN (this generation or future generations) will the cost occur and the consequences occur, where will the consequences occur, is mitigation cheaper than adaptation? How much change can the ecosystems take and still function properly. Don't forget what will the consequences be (drought and fire in Russia are obvious, but with years of this, could noxious weeds and exploding insect pest make farming harder, heating cost might not be as high, but building an infrastructure to move water to deal with drought could get expensive - lots of other examples).

Good question. I wish I had an answer.

"Is it basically a twist of fate that the earth began to signifigantly heat merely because of the fact the business revolution began?" in case you attempt to link human movements because of the fact the business revolution to worldwide warming, are you able to thrill clarify how human movements led to the medieval heat era?? "Even Bush positioned the polar undergo on the endangered species record because of the melting ice." No, it became into recomended. that's not yet on the endagered species record, because of the fact the scientists take approximately twelve months to bypass in the process the documentation to make confident that's technological know-how and not environmentalism making the determination. "The earth is in temperature cycles that final 1000's of years. we are nowhere close to the top of our cutting-edge climate degree, yet republicans declare that it is organic. it is the 1st time in background that the temperature cycle has replaced. it shall be some thosand greater years till the earth starts off warming. worldwide warming isn't organic!" Wow.....you extremely have not examine any of the technological know-how have you ever? particular larger usual cycles final 1000's or 1000's of years, yet have assorted temp fluctations interior them. the only given is that all of us be attentive to what happened interior the previous, and that may not let us know what is going to take place interior the destiny, even with the reality that environmentalists will attempt to tell you in yet in a distinctive way. worldwide warming is organic, or we would not have had comparable classes in the process background. "open your eyes, this warming style is in assessment to the different." No, that's comparable to others, examine the data. "ninety% of glaciers are shrinking." one hundred% of glaciers are continuously changing their length....... "exciting actuality - variety of organic worldwide preserves clinton opened - 203 variety of organic worldwide preserves bush opened - 2" What does this ought to do with worldwide warming? greater advantageous exciting actuality is that Bush's domicile in Texas is greater capability useful then Al Gore's. "Is a ford holiday extremely neccesary republicans? I confident see alot of you utilising them" And Al Gore flies in a private plane. Planes use so plenty greater gasoline then ford expeditions..... in reality, you attempt to lame the blame of world warming on Republicans, that's a chortle. awaken, examine the technological know-how, and comprehend that via attempting to politicize this situation, you will at last reason it to alter into trivial over the years!!

You have keyed in on a few big IFS, and a very large question of how it is handled.

Most good scientists have been intelligent enough not to say that AGW has caused the Russian heat wave, given that they understand that natural variability is large. Neither have they even suggested that this occurence will soon be the norm for Russia. So, your entire premise is wrong, but assuming AGW is happening, there is quite a bit of uncertainty surrounding how much. Even more uncertainty around how it will affect us. An unmeasurable amount of uncertainty around the cost of this warming.

Realize that we have only had an increase of 0.74 degrees in the last 100 years. This is not terribly abnormal or unusual. Nor is it abnormal or unusual for a location to have a record occur within a year, let alone the length of time that AGW has been popular. Within that time frame it is almost a certainty that a location would ahve record temps.

Now if you are looking at methods of reducing CO2, there are the crazy methods, and the not so crazy methods. The crazy methods include not allowing third woprlkd countries to have power plant and thus causing deaths, creating a huge tax scheme during a recession that places no limit on to the cost of carbon, all to be paid for by the already struggling middle class, and creating an international body that has the ability to tax without acutally being elected representatives (heard of no taxation without representation?). These crazy solutions could cost a tremendous amount and cause far more problems than AGW. They could also be so hated by the populous that the populous abandons all attempts to reduce CO2.

The not-so-crazy solutions involve working to allow tax credit for power companies that reduce CO2, taxing CO2 at a set amount each year and giving the middle class a commissurate tax break, helping the nuclear power industry in getting land to produce power plants, supporting tax incentive on e-cars and hybrids. Some of these are being done, most are not. These solutions would have relatively little impact on the economy.

• What is the cost of global warming?

The most thorough investigation into the costs of global warming was conducted by the economist Sir Nicholas Stern, the findings were published in the Stern Review.

Stern and his team calculated that the current cost of global warming is $600 billion a year and is expected to rise to about $1.5 trillion a year. In the worst case scenario the cost could be as much as $12 trillion a year by the year 2100.

In addition to the capital costs are the human ones. The World Health Organisation has calculated that in the last 10 years alone there have been an extra 1.5 million deaths and 100 million instances of disease that have been caused by global warming, the figure is expected to double in the next 10 years.

Full Report - http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/...

Executive Summary - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_10_0...

Key Points- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6098362.stm

• What is the cost of adjusting to it?

That depends on how we adjust. Some measures can be implemented for nothing, others involve schemes that would cost many trillions of dollars.

We can adjust by making adaptations, switching the alternative energies is one such example. These costs are minimal, particularly when implemented on a large scale. British Gas are spending £2 billion on a wind farm that will supply energy to a million homes, had they opted for conventional energy sources it would have cost them £3 billion with significantly higher running costs.

There are proposed schemes to extract greenhouse gases from the air, one such scheme would cost a lot to implement but the byproduct is heat and oil, both of which can be sold to offset the initial capital costs.

Given that we’re already losing $600 billion a year, we could adjust to the effects of climate change for a fraction of this amount. The longer we delay taking action the more expensive it becomes and the more we lose out in the long run.

Haven't been charged for it yet, but considering our economy..I'm sure there will be a tax coming up:)

Haven't been charged for it yet, but considering our economy..I'm sure there will be a tax coming up:)

The ultimate cost of global warming is the human race goes extinct. That's all

Haven't been charged for it yet, but considering our economy..I'm sure there will be a tax coming up:)

Cost is and will be great.

Since environment is a kind of public products, everyone should pay for it but everyone would not pay for it. It is a kind of prisoner dilemma.