There is the funding of AGW, there is green energy costs and subsidies, there is biofuel interference in agriculture, there is the regulation caused by the excuse that we need it for AGW prevention, there is the carbon taxes to protect us from AGW and probably some hidden costs such as the destruction of real jobs. I don't know what it is but I would be skeptical of any number less than 1,000,000,000,000(s) (that is a million million, a thousand billion, or a trillion). As Sara Palin suggested, I pray that Obama never learns what number comes after a trillion.
Who is going to replace a functioning fossil fuel plant with renewable? And the government would not be spending this money. Instead the renewable would be part of an increasing mix.
Also, subsidies available to fossil fuel companies are NOT comparable to renewable subsidies. Frequently the claims of subsidies to fossil fuel companies refer to tax credits and deductions available to all companies, like equipment costs. Meanwhile, the government is giving out thousands of dollars in rebates for hybrids and electric cars, as well as solar installations.
I realize that your aim is to try to keep the discussion in fairly simple and straightforward bounds, but it really is a distortion too far to look only at gross costs of action against AGW. Consistently applying such a meat ax approach to social spending would lead logically to the conclusion that it would be vastly more beneficial to eliminate social security, medicare, and the entire military budget because of the many trillions of dollars those programs expropriate annually. In reality, of course, their gargantuan costs do not come without some important associated social benefits.
To rail against supposed high costs of AGW policy action, as is often done, would be like giving the Pentagon nothing but a handful of National Guard units, Peace Corps volunteers, Board Patrol troopers, intelligence officers, and some observation satellites, and then flooding the internet with warnings about how threats from Putin's Russia, China, and ISIS are "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated" and nothing but a military industrial plot to fleece taxpayers.
Denialists claim billions or even trillions. But, the amount of money being spent to "prove" global warming is ZERO. Research grants are not made to prove anything but to answer questions.
Most of the money spent on climate research goes to weather stations and satellites; the data acquisition system.
The parameters that you have set are ridiculous. For example, so-called 'Green' energy has proven itself to be terribly expensive per KWH compared to ANY fossil fuel source if you are looking at Taxpayer handouts. This is in addition to the fact that Wind/Solar are..;..in the end....more polluting that traditional fossil fuels.
The court needs to be the same size on both sides of the net. Please go back to the drawing board.
For Germany alone
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0SO8yaQQ...
Quote
In fact, the US government alone spent over $106 billion in taxpayer funds on alarmist climate research between 2003 and 2010. In return, the researchers refuse to let other scientists, IPCC reviewers or FOIA investigators see their raw data, computer codes or CO2-driven algorithms. The modelers and scientists claim the information is private property, even though taxpayers paid for the work and the results are used to justify energy, job and economy-killing policies and regulations. Uncle Sam spends billions more every year on renewable energy programs that raise energy prices, cost jobs and reduce living standards.
Climate change denial funding is just over $900 million.
billions
It seems to be an article of faith among many of those who reject anthropogenic global warming that we are currently spending vast sums to deal with the problem. But does anyone have anything close to hard numbers?
Note, I am only interested here in money that we are spending that we would not *otherwise* spend. Subsidies for "green" energy that are equivalent to the subsidies available for fossil-fuel energy don't count. Likewise money spent to build "green" power plants that are either increasing total capacity, or replacing aging fossil fuel power plants that need to be closed for other reasons. I also wouldn't count "global warming research" that is more or less an incidental side effect of general weather and/or climate research (scientists are trying to understand weather better so that we can better predict what it will do, which can help with things like growing crops). Only money spent on research that is primarily or specifically about global warming, or money spent replacing entirely functional fossil fuel plants with renewable or nuclear energy, or the like.
Also, since numbers like this can... seem bigger than they are, when you're talking about world-wide, or even nation-wide expenditures, how does it compare to what we're spending on, say, food safety, or law enforcement, or something else that the government does?
And, any other related thoughts?
