dibo
Well-Known Member
most scientists simply don't agree that solar activity is a factor. governments are looking at the science. as the studies build up and the consensus grows stronger, many of those who used to be sceptics are no longer, perhaps following john maynard keynes's maxim 'when the evidence changes, i change my mind'.
then there's the simpler nuts and bolts economics of it. i'll take a nice quote from the economics editor of the sydney morning herald who wrote:
so basically, the science is stacking up and the cost in the end will be negligible (assuming we take the smart approach to cutting emissions and use emissions trading to create a price signal - this allows the market to direct investment into alternative energy sources, emissions abatement programs and technological change to reduce energy demand).
what's more, investment in these things ensures that we can help china, india and the rest of the less developed world to grow and become prosperous sustainably.
there is only so much fossil fuel out there. as we use more, it becomes more expensive - demand rises while supply is finite. if we can avert the problem of scarcity by tapping non-scarce sources of energy there is an international justice to it that i personally find very attractive.
then there's the simpler nuts and bolts economics of it. i'll take a nice quote from the economics editor of the sydney morning herald who wrote:
The widespread fear that the economic cost of limiting climate change will be prohibitive - or will demand tough changes in people's lifestyles - arises partly from well-meaning misapprehension, but also from the misrepresentations of the global warming sceptics. The pre-enlightened John Howard and his ministers did a lot to propagate this misconception.
It's easily done. Say I produce a study which estimates that limiting emissions will have a cost of 3 per cent gross domestic product or, in today's dollars, about $35 billion. Sounds pretty expensive, eh?
But it's not as bad as it's made to sound. The first thing I omitted to tell you was that the 3 per cent loss was a cumulative loss that takes 20 or 30 years to build up. In other words, the loss averages just 0.1 per cent of GDP a year.
The other thing I omitted to say was that it's not an absolute loss, just an opportunity cost. That is, it's not that GDP will fall by 0.1 per cent a year, but that it will grow by 0.1 per cent a year less than it otherwise would.
To put it another way, the economy will keep growing quite strongly despite our efforts to reduce emissions. The most recent study, conducted for the Climate Institute by the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University and others, finds that achieving a reduction in emissions of 20 per cent by 2020 and 60 per cent or more by 2050 would involve economic growth averaging 2.8 per cent a year rather than 2.9 per cent. This is broadly in line with what other studies have found.
so basically, the science is stacking up and the cost in the end will be negligible (assuming we take the smart approach to cutting emissions and use emissions trading to create a price signal - this allows the market to direct investment into alternative energy sources, emissions abatement programs and technological change to reduce energy demand).
what's more, investment in these things ensures that we can help china, india and the rest of the less developed world to grow and become prosperous sustainably.
there is only so much fossil fuel out there. as we use more, it becomes more expensive - demand rises while supply is finite. if we can avert the problem of scarcity by tapping non-scarce sources of energy there is an international justice to it that i personally find very attractive.