Will action on global warming cripple our economy?

No. Every single independent economic analysis has concluded to the contrary, even though they compare the economic costs of putting a price on carbon emissions to a business as usual (BAU) scenario in which climate change has no impact on the economy whatsoever. Most analyses find that the impact of various climate legislation proposals on this unrealistic BAU scenario is less than 1% of GDP over the next 20–40 years.

And let's remember, the USA is the lynchpin in international climate talks. If we can't agree to reduce our emissions (which we can't as long as Republicans keep blocking legislation), then we won't get a decent international agreement. If we can, there will be such an agreement. So American action on global warming basically means global action on global warming, which means significant global emissions reductions, which means significant economic impacts from climate change prevented. In other words, you have to compare that ~$200 billion cost to the savings incurred by slowing climate change.

Did you not come on here and talk about a study that showed that it could have the effect of decreasing the GDP by 3%? That is a loss of 750 billion dollars a year. The equivalent of losing 15 millions jobs. THis is all assuming that the pieces of legislation that you want passed are the only pieces of legislation you want passed. If you come back 5 years from now wanitng to pass another 3% loss to GDP bill, then I have to ask where it willl end? Further, It is quite clear that some of the environemental policies already instituted have caused some loss to the GDP.

So my question is very simple. WHy are we accepting these "solutions" that are realy not much more than a smoke-screen for people like you to have a warm fuzzy that we are indeed doing something? Here is a simple solution.

1.) Make it so that no new coal power plants can come on line.

2.) Allow nuclear power plants to reuse spent fuel rods.

3.) When placing new power plants on line, create many new nuclear power plants using the same design. Note that unlike hydro-electric, geothermal, and even solar to a point, nuclear power plants can have the same desing in nearly any location.

4.) Continually drop subsidies for coal, ethanol, and oil/gasoline, while raising subsidies for consumers who purchase e-cars and for nuclear power. Note wind and solar are alreayd recieving many subsidies, so they just need to increase in cost efficiency.

5.) Use the cooling water from the nuclear power plants to heat neighboring factories.

This is a plan that will not result in new taxes, will not cause a 3% decrease in GDP, but will eventually cause the US to produce nearly 0 CO2 emissions. Why would it not cause a drop in GDP? Because we would be replacing coal power plants when they need to be replaced and with a source that if #2 and 3 are followed would actually be cheaper than coal. Add in # 5 and you it would be much cheaper. Note also that allowing the same design for many plants would also allow for the quality of the plants to be improved.

Paul B,

That Mckay is actually quite interesting. IF you look at the section on nuclear, it is clear that a plan using both thorium and uranium reactors, would indeed provide all of the power necessary for 1000's of years. It is also clear that while subsidies would be necessary for decommishioning of the plants, that those subsidies are far less than the subsidies given for wind power by kWh (about a third for the UK). What is also clear is that the amount of nuclear waste would be far more manageable than the waste from other methods. Allowing for the subsidies on solar to conitnue, the tech should eventually be able to give consumers a way of reducing their electric bill, they are actually almost doing this now.

The effect of climate change on the world economy will depend on how fast the change is and to the degree of change in various parts of the world. A dryer climate in parts of India and China would mean a depressed agricultural output in a part of the world where there's a huge concentration of population. Not good! Shorter winters with massive amounts of wet snow in the eastern United States would bring enormous transportation problems there, followed by massive spring floods that would likewise tie up transportation hubs. We've seen that happen already, so it's not going to be a big surprise. Dryer summer conditions on the US great plains would reduce wheat, soy bean and corn production, but wetter winters would cause massive flooding along the Mississippi and in other major river basins. Melting glaciers and sea ice, thanks to thermal expansion over time will create massive damage to various seaports and coastal developments. I suspect that for a long time the 'economy' will be able to cope, but as agriculture production and the ability to ship large quantities of agricultural products world wide becomes more difficult the 'personal economies' of many of the world's individuals will become far more difficult as well. The most likely outcome of a fast moving climate change will be famines and droughts in the most impacted parts of the world resulting in massive political and economic disruptions. A slower moving wave of climate change may not have such abrupt disruptions, but the outcome in the end will be about the same. I wouldn't worry so much about 'ecotaxers' as i would about the cost of water, groceries and energy. Most people in the world currently are on the hard edge of economic disaster...and overall, these are 'good times'. ANY disruption of climate will be a disaster for most people. Not to be a wet blanket, but in the end nothing will be done to stop 'global warming'...we'll all just have to deal with it as it comes.

Expel CO2's plan is probably the best plan. It should also be accompanied by replacing oil with natural gas wherever it's possible, in order to make up for the time it'll take to build the nuclear plants. Currently, technically recoverable natural gas resources are well over 1,000 trillion feet in the US, and the US's 2009 usage was 23 trillion cubic feet. So in addition to being cleaner, it'll also help to relieve the energy burden during the time that it'll take to build nuclear plants.

People think it would cripple the economy when it will actually cripple it very little, if at all. But what would cripple it even more is no action, because doing nothing will kill the people who would have otherwise been around to spend the money they had before global warming killed them.

The carbon tax of British Columbia Canada is working well, as has been stated on it anniversary recently. Maybe others should follow our model? Cap and trade for larger business in this region is expected to take effect in either 2011 or 2012.

No,in fact the smart money has already gone that way.

Economies rebound with change,in the past wars have stimulated a sagging economy.

Right now the cost of oil is holding the recovery of the economy back.That is why we here in Alberta see the rise of the price of oil go hand in hand with the rise of the Canadian dollar against the American dollar.Every time the American economy begins to rally the price of oil goes up,which in turn pushes the economy down.

Great question hope to hear more answers thanks

The only way to tackle the perceived CO2 problem is to reduce power consumption as there are no real alternatives to fossil fuels. For example in the UK CO2 tax for vehicles is already excessive and can cost more than $1500 per year plus the planned further ecotaxes are crippling the countryside where people do not have any access to decent public transport as others do in the cities. The costs of fuels to move and heat homes is taking a bigger and bigger chunk of household incomes, It costs over $130 to fill an average fuel tank and travel 300 miles. Some people are paying $1500 per month on fuel travelling 90 miles to work and back each day and there are also plans to tax people to park their car at work and tax them for entering towns and cities to go to work all in the name of reducing CO2 to save the world.

And this is just the start as many other ecopolicies are being discussed by unelected green men and women on TV! As these policies kick in they will cripple hard working people as they have no alternatives, the costs are excessive and all based on warming that is not unusual compared to previous warming trends.

I worry only for the average hard working man and/or woman with mouths to feed!

If we continue the changes at the pace that we are doing then it will help the economy but if we past cap and trade or push for rapid reductions in CO2 emissions then it will hurt the economy. So far, the only economists that the AGW crowd believes are the ones that say that cap and trade will do no harm and the biggest group who says this is the Congressional Budget Office who rarely gets the actual cost of something correct.

It is funny how a lot of the AGW supporters think that we are doing nothing when in fact most of the alternative energy sources have been being researched for at least 50 years if not longer.

We seem to be doing a pretty good job anyway of reversing global GDP growth.

For a sensible review of energy options and their costs, see David MacKay's book, Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, available free online at www.withouthotair.com

All options have costs and benefits. The option with greatest costs is business as usual.

And does Pete really believe that the daily express is the right place to go to for evaluation of complex scientific issues?