Apparently, an economist has estimated the environmental cost of global warming (assuming the globe does warm) at $23 trillion in 2005 dollars through 2100. I haven't read the book and can't vouch for his methodology, but it's hard to believe that all this hype has been built up over something so trivial.
This years global "GDP" is estimated to be approximately $77 trillion, so the damage from global warming over the course of the 21st century isn't even a third of one years GDP. If we assume a very conservative 1% average real growth in the world economy this century, world GDP in today's dollars in 2100 will be just shy of $200 trillion and total GDP over the next 92 years will be $11.7 quadrillion. So, what in the world is all the fuss about?
30 May 2008
06 May 2008
The Reality Based Community
The Google search "Bush withdraw Kyoto" finds 407000 hits, only a small number of which make the point that, in fact, the Bush Administration has not withdrawn from the Kyoto accord and that the Bush Administration's approach to Kyoto is exactly the same as the Clinton Administration's approach. (Here is the official site of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change showing the US as a signatory party.)
This is, of course, entirely separate from (1) whether global warming is a problem and (2) the US has performed far better than almost all the other signatories in limiting its increase of greenhouse gas emissions and, in 2006, actually decreased its emissions, something that no other party, other than arguably Great Britain, has managed in a non-recessionary year.
This is, of course, entirely separate from (1) whether global warming is a problem and (2) the US has performed far better than almost all the other signatories in limiting its increase of greenhouse gas emissions and, in 2006, actually decreased its emissions, something that no other party, other than arguably Great Britain, has managed in a non-recessionary year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)