Month/date unknown
Here is an answer. THe IEA states that we would have to spend an additional 5 T to keep to under 2 degrees beyond the amount used with reduction already added. So the US uses 19% of the world energy. That would be 26.3 Trillion not accounting for the fact that developing countries like India and China have more groun to make up.
Would you warmers like me to say "MUCH more than 26 trillion"?
Note that my number also does not account for the fact that the IEA already had accounted for reduction in CO2 emissions, just not to the 2 degree point. Not that anything they wrote with respect to 2 degrees of change makes sense given the US is not the only country emitting CO2.
Edit:
Dook:
Your 51 trillion is the best answer so far, but I can only give you BA if you unblock, sorry those are the rules of YA, not me.
Dook,
Since you have nothing to add in your update to the ACTUAL QUESTION, I will use your 51 Trillion then.
But to respond to your accusations. You say my 48 trillion is wrong, call me a liar, insane, etc, but then fail to give an estimate. PROVING that everything you say is wrong.
GIVE ME AN ESTIMATE. I WILL USE THAT. But you don't and you can't because you know very well that my number is pretty close.
I swear this is just absurd. The salesman comes to me without telling me the cost. I estimate the cost, and the salesman tells me I am worng, stupid, insane, etc. BUT DOESN'T give me the cost. THIS IS ABSURD> IT IS YOUR IDIOTIC PLANS AND YOU WON'T GIVE A COST.
I am using 48 trilllion until you warmers get your act together and give a better estimate.
First of all I do not agree with the 2 degree limit, the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Eemian Maximum were warmer than that , and the Earth did not suffer in fact it was a better greener, richer place then.
However at the current rate of warming, and the amount of warming CO2 adds to the climate, it is doubtful that even 2000ppm would cause a rise of over 2 degrees C, so the action needed to prevent a 2 degree rise is zero, and the cost is zero.
The current best estimate is that investment would lead to a reduction in GDP growth of 0.06%. There would also be economic savings because of less pollution, but these are not calculated in this figure. They could be very big: the NAS gives a figure of $120 billion a year in healthcare damage from burning fossil fuels in the US. They also poison fisheries, and damage crops and buildings.
Page 15 here:
http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipc...
You need to be in the government they love to through money at Global Warming, you need everybody in the world to agree to it. like try to get that through , why don't we just wait the globe will start to cool in a few years on its own at no cost to you then we can claim Victory on Global Warming. We Did It
It entirely depends on how we go about it. I don't have the figures (and am late for work and should probably not be answering this right now), but... any headway we make by increasing efficiency will actually *save* us money. Similarly, reducing deforestation has significant benefits beyond CO2. Solar and wind power have relatively high installation costs, but lower ongoing costs than other power sources. And so on.
It really depends on how you count it, and how we do it.
a stich in time saves nine. a lot lrss tgan damages later but i guess it is somebody else problrm. even better, the people who will pay are not born yet.
In you answer to my question, you said,
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
OK! What is your plan?
It could cost everything we have because we cannot control nature. We could no more stop warming at 2 degrees than we could to lower the temps by 2 degrees.
Won't cost us anything. God doesn't charge for things like that.
Evidently, the warmers do not like the numbers I have provided, so I invite them to provide a better estimate. Note I am asking for a total cost. Not the cost of one bill that will not do the entire job. Total cost.
You might at least cite your source for $5T, i.e., my answer here: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index... Before that answer of mine, you were claiming $53T (your answer that same page). Nor did you have a clue about IEA being involved until you read my answer.
No one can predict the long range future that precisely, just as no one can say with credibility how much higher the Dow Jones index will be in 2035, if there even is one still then (which by your "logic" -that same above-linked prior YA page- makes the stock market, due to the difficulty of predicting its future value, some kind of environmentalist hoax based on "no data"). But this following link describes one of the most thorough such reports: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Revie...
The projected "cost" in that "better estimate," that you pretend to be so very interested in, is an approximate 3% GAIN to global GDP. (Certainly there's is massively more informed estimate that your "fallacy of composition" projection of the US to the world, that "clarifies" your "estimate" into three drastically different numbers.
"According to the Review, without action, the overall costs of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, now and forever. Including a wider range of risks and impacts could increase this to 20% of GDP or more, also indefinitely.
One percent of global GDP per year would be required to be "invested to avoid the worst effects of climate change. In June 2008, Stern increased the estimate for the annual cost of achieving stabilisation between 500 and 550 ppm CO2 to 2% of GDP to account for faster than expected climate change.
5-2=3% I suppose that level of math is understandable, despite your arduous efforts to remain ignorant of climate science.
Edit: I overestimated your intelligence and/or underestimated your addiction to insulting other people's intelligence. Now (update 4) you accept Stern's 2% gross cost but ignore the Stern's 5% gross gain (by reducing climate change). And, thereby try to pass off a 3% net gain (5-2), as a 2% net cost. Amazing the "skills" learned while "earning" a "PhD in Statistics" from an "accredited" institution.
Edit2: The rules of this site are clear enough to anyone with half a brain. Anyone can block any one else anytime. What is not possible is to block someone from only selected questions. No reasons are needed for blocking. But if anyone is looking for reasons, your latest antics (see also the first link here above) offer some candidates:
1) Citing an article in proof of a claim without reading the article or the easily available international governmental report on which the article is based.
2) Making repeated accusations against unnamed "warmers" for allegedly failing to estimate the costs of policy actions favoring non-carbon energy sources, in ignorance of the many such studies by economists, going back three decades, while presenting/revising estimates that are all over the place, varying by as much as a factor of ten.
3) Confusing net cost/benefit with gross cost and then fibbing like bejesus to try to cover up such a sophomoric error.
4) Repeating mantra-like the laughable notion that hundreds of Nobel Prize winning scientists must be all politically motivated "warmers" in supporting consensus science on climate, because researchers of the global climate cannot predict the future precisely. As if insurance is a politically motivated hoax because insurance companies often deal in probabilities rather than certainties about future claims on them.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes.
Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
This "warmer," as anti-science ignoramuses (including those who are only insulted by others and never insult others) like to call people who accept science, disagrees with you. Perhaps you really are a liberal and anti-conservative after all?
