The Political Economics of "Global Warming"

[Abba'sLil'Girl]

Global Warming: A Science and Economics Update

Chicago Climate Exchange and other private-sector players are trying to sell “carbon credits” to farmers and others in the expectation that mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions are in the offing.

The fatal flaw of all these schemes is their cost. They would require spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year--trillions of dollars during the coming decades--to reduce emissions by amounts too small to have a measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, the best estimate of the cost of the Kyoto Protocol--which would have required the U.S. to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2010, is $375 billion in lost gross domestic product every year.

It would destroy 2.4 million jobs--jobs in manufacturing and agriculture that would go to China, India, and the other 177 of the world’s 210 countries that aren’t subject to the Kyoto Protocol ... or to the majority of European countries that have signed the Kyoto Protocol but already are failing to stay inside its caps. (I don’t know if you knew this, but the Kyoto Protocol has no enforcement mechanism ... none at all.)

(Also by the way, the 179 countries that are not bound to the terms of the Kyoto Protocol account for 76 percent of the world’s CO2 emissions and 90 percent of the world’s population. It’s not a global solution to a global problem.)

Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would cost the average household in the U.S. about $3,400 a year in lost income and higher prices for consumer goods. Please think about that: $3,400 a year, about $300 a month. How many households could afford this? It’s more than the average family spends on food and clothing combined.

All this pain, for what? Most of the reduction in emissions in the U.S. would be offset by higher emissions in third world countries, the ones that would be manufacturing the goods and producing the food that would no longer be produced in the U.S. due to the cost of regulations and energy taxes. And because CO2, once released, remains in the atmosphere for up to 100 years, reductions in emissions in any one year have a minuscule effect on concentrations in the atmosphere.

To have any impact on the global climate, emission reductions would have to be global--not just by a few developed countries--and they would have to be steep--about 70 percent to 80 percent of current emissions. This isn’t just economically impossible, it’s technologically impossible. Why take “a first step” (as many climate alarmists call the Kyoto Protocol) if the necessary next steps are impossible?

continued:
Source: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20702


Other articles of interest. . .

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3532036.html

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2006/11/

http://www.worldclimatereport.com

[jayna]

I guess you heard Cheryl Crow has it figured out. Use 1 square of toilet paper on each bathroom visit and in dire circumstances only 2 or 3 squares!! :willie

[johnuk]

So what is the answer?

When we have destroyed our ability to live on this planet arguments about was 'economically impossible' are going to sound pretty hollow.....

[CitySearcher]

If everyone took responsiblity for there own actions and decisions, and attempted to make the smallest 'foot-print' possible, we wouldn't have to have discussions on how much is it going to cost to clean up, how many jobs will be lost, will is really make a difference, etc., etc.

(although, I don't think I would go as far as restricting my TP usage to that extent! -sorry Sheryl... ) :fear

...that will be the end to the common hand-shake! :zipit

[Abba'sLil'Girl]

So what is the answer?

When we have destroyed our ability to live on this planet arguments about was 'economically impossible' are going to sound pretty hollow.....

The debate on whether we are even making a great enough impact to "destroy" the planet is still raging. There is simply not enough evidence to conclude that CO2 emissions are the main cause of climate change. According to many scientists, the sun is the major player in global warming, yet no politician seems to be worried about how to cool down the sun or how to protect people from it's harmful rays. Why?

Scientifically, we do see a change in weather patterns, but it still remains to be seen if that is simply a natural occurance or the cause of another factor. Also, some of the data given to support global warming by C02 emissions and the results thereof are inaccurate.

For example, Al Gore states in his documentary that ocean levels will rise by some 20 feet within the next ten years. This isn't the case. According to scientific models, ocean levels will rise only 16 inches in the entire 21st century. If we are to judge the sincerity of those who claim an "emergency" situation is upon us, then we need to also look at their actions as much as we do their words. Mr. Gore has yet to stop driving his SUVs and flying by private jet. What does this say about his sincerity and belief in his cause?

So, before we wreck our economy - specifically the US economy, as Kyoto would do - then we need to make sure that the science behind the claims are accurate. To push forward and destoy the economy of certain countries - while creating an advantage for others - solely for political reasons using "pseudo-science" would be reckless to say the least.

Furthermore, the current path of the UN and it's global warming agenda would not only mainly hurt the economy of the US, it would stiffle any development in impoverished countries - not on the UN Kyoto list - as further environmental limitations would be set in place, and they would be unable to develop much needed sources of energy in order to rise above poverty. This is already happening today - specifically in Africa.

Do we need to be responsible with our environment? Absolutely, but not at the cost of human lives and welfare. We must remember that history has shown us that politics is often about power, money and position. If it were truly about humanitarian efforts, then we would have no Darfur. Any claim by any politician needs to be examined thoroughly. If not, then we are only fooling oursleves.

It is up to every citizen in every country to educate themselves on both sides of this subject.

Cheers. :)

[CitySearcher]

It is up to every citizen in every country to educate themselves on both sides of this subject.

Amen!

[johnuk]

The debate on whether we are even making a great enough impact to "destroy" the planet is still raging. There is simply not enough evidence to conclude that CO2 emissions are the main cause of climate change.

Aside from the "scientists" that are bought and paid for by the fossil fuels industry there is no serious debate about global warming among scientists.

The world is warming as a result of mankind - the question is what are we going to do about it?

[CitySearcher]

Not sure bout everyone else, but I've been capturing and storing all the methane release by the local bovine.....don't ask me how.....:gtongue

I'd say I'm doing my part! :aha

Seriously, it would be nice if every person were to be good stewards of the Earth and practice conservation on an individual level. It shouldn't have to involve the endless debates and costs issues, but that's the way it will be, or so it looks. I'm sure there are many getting rich on the issue as well as many rich men unwilling to give up on their riches for the 'sake of the cause'

For those who do not believe in what the Bible is stating will be coming upon the Earth and mankind: Go ahead and try to salvage it, but it is a never-ending battle until the Streams of Life proceed from the Heavenly City above Israel. Only then will these waters heal our lands; only then can we be free from the cycles of weather and natural disasters. (IMHO)

Ezekiel 47 (King James Version) 6 And he said unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen this? Then he brought me, and caused me to return to the brink of the river.

7 Now when I had returned, behold, at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other.

8 Then said he unto me, These waters issue out toward the east country, and go down into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea, the waters shall be healed.

9 And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live whither the river cometh.

10 And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.

11 But the miry places thereof and the marishes thereof shall not be healed; they shall be given to salt.

12 And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine.

I want to be one of the gardners/caretakers! :thumbup

[Abba'sLil'Girl]

Aside from the "scientists" that are bought and paid for by the fossil fuels industry there is no serious debate about global warming among scientists.

The world is warming as a result of mankind - the question is what are we going to do about it?


Actually . . . not true. Sorry.

The following are only a few of the numerous articles and opinions of scientific experts - whom to my knowledge aren't "bought and paid for" by the evil oil industry. :)

http://www.jbs.org/node/602
Dr. S. Fred Singer is an atmospheric physicist who leads the Washington-based Science and Environmental Policy Project. He is also a distinguished research professor at George Mason University in Virginia and the Institute for Space Science and Technology in Florida. He was the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now a branch of the Department of Commerce. He is the author of numerous books, the latest of which is Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate.


http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1832.htm
This is actually a BBC documentary exposing Al Gore's global warming claims.

Another interesting note on Mr. Gore is Tennesse's report on his "environmental" habits . . .http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367


http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1833.htm
http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p686.htm
Dr. Arthur B. Robinson is a Professor of Chemistry. He was a faculty member of the University of California at San Diego and was President and Research Director of the Linus Pauling Institute before founding the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine with his wife Laurelee, who is also a scientist.


http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1523.htm
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.O., and D.Sc., is a professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiologi-cal Protection in Warsaw. A multidisciplinary scientist, he has studied glacier ice samples from around the world, analyzing traces of heavy metals and radionuclides. He is well known as an expert on radiation effects, and has served as the chairman of the UNSCEAR (United Nations Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation). Among his previous articles in 21st Century Science & Technology is "Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase."


http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.


If you really want to learn about the other side of the coin, then I would suggest taking a look at the above articles. Also, the following information is quite interesting as well.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-changes/
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/about-us/
Acclaimed by those on both sides of the global warming debate, World Climate Report has become the definitive and unimpeachable source for what Nature now calls the “mainstream skeptic” point of view, which is that climate change is a largely overblown issue and that the best expectation is modest change over the next 100 years. WCR is often cited by prominent scientists and lawmakers and is a surprisingly enjoyable read—which may account for its broad appeal.


http://www.junkscience.com/
http://www.junkscience.com/Junkman.html
Steven J. Milloy is the founder and publisher of JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com; an investment adviser to the Free Enterprise Action Fund ; and a columnist for FoxNews.com .

Since April 1, 1996, JunkScience.com has had a discernible impact in the fight against junk science and garnered numerous awards, including being named:

a "Top Resource" and one of the "Most Popular" health news web sites by Yahoo!
"One of the 50 Best Web Sites" by Popular Science
a "Hot Pick" by Science.
A "leading debunker" of global warming by Rolling Stone magazine


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200409%5 CNAT20040915c.html
The experts noted in this article include Dr. James O'Brien, professor of meteorology & oceanography at the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University; Dr. Gary Sharp, scientific director at the Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study; Dr. Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri - Columbia; Dr. David Legates, associate professor of climatology at the University of Delaware; and George Taylor, Oregon State climatologist.


Happy reading. :)

[KnightErrant]

Aside from the "scientists" that are bought and paid for by the fossil fuels industry there is no serious debate about global warming among scientists.

The world is warming as a result of mankind - the question is what are we going to do about it?


What are we going to do about it? Nothing, if we're smart.:yikes

Yes, there is some very serious debate going on about Global Warming! Are we really warming, and if so how much? (1 degree F over 100 years is nothing to freak out about.)
:candle

How does does CO2 contribute as opposed to the other, much more important greenhouse gasses, such as methane and water vapor! Yes, clouds have more impact on the climate than CO2.
:fear

If it is really happening, is it such a bad thing? (We are nowhere near the temperature levels of the Medieval Warm Period, which was a better time of health and prosperity compared to the Little Ice Age which we are just now leaving. Or the Roman Warm period, where the good weather made the Roman Empire and the spread of the Gospel possible.)
:scratch

Is this a result of human activity, or a natural occurance which repeats itself at regular intervals. :doh

Why are all the other planets in our Solar System warming at the same rate as Earth? The ice caps on Mars are melting, (unlike those on Earth, which are actually getting thicker rather than melting,) and there are no SUVs up there! Could it be.....THE SUN?:willie

Our sun, like most stars, is a variable star, it's output increasing and decreasing on a regular cycle. Some stars have periods of only a few weeks, most have longer cycles, like the 1000 year cycle of Sol.
:scripture

My dear old daddy taught me years ago, that when someone comes to you trying to make you afraid, then claiming that they and they alone can save you, but you first have to give them all your money and all your freedoms, then it's time for Flight or Fight. IMHO, the Global Warming movement is just another part of the end-times move to centralized government under the Anti-Christ. Don't cooperate.

And whenever anyone tells you that there is no serious debate on a subject, then you can bet that there is a lot of serious debate going on, but they don't want you to hear it. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."