[Vision2020] An Inconvenient Price

Fri Oct 19 10:22:35 PDT 2007

Ted
I don't think that you should so easily dismiss George Willl's comments.  He is just a journalist and a lay person on global waming but  Lomberg whow he sites is a scientist and his statements should be taken seriously. Global warming has plusses an minuses as Will pointed out. Not everything is negative. Glogal warming by itself may be a benefit overall. What problems there are are better solved by the free market system(with some government guide lines) not draconian government regulation which would stifle the economy. This is not to say we should not be concerned about air pollution. It is a problem and measures should be taken to curtail it. There has already been some improvement in this area.  As an example, in the 1960"s you could smell PFI in Moscow. Now you can hardly ever smell it from just acrose the river.  Efforts to find cleaner fuel should be continued.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Ted Moffett" starbliss at gmail.com
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 02:14:32 -0700
To: "lfalen at turbonet.com" lfalen at turbonet.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] An Inconvenient Price

> All-
> 
> George F. Will, in the Newsweek article on economic cost/benefit of
> substantive lowering of greenhouse gas emissions, misrepresents so many
> aspects of the science of global warming, that only someone who had not
> studied the peer reviewed science on this issue could take the article
> seriously.  But even just his economic analysis, such as it is, ignores
> reports from the Union of Concerned Scientists and the United Kingdom,
> employing numerous scientists and economists, that indicate that lowering
> greenhouse gas emissions can be substantively addressed without draconian
> economic impacts.  In fact, the global economic costs of not significantly
> slowing global warming are greater than the costs of lowering greenhouse gas
> emissions.
> 
> The astonishing and short sighted assumption that George F. Will appears to
> make, that is often made by the critics of action to address global
> warming, is that projections of climate change by the end of this century
> will not be followed by even more massive projections for change between
> 2100-2200, if we do not lower emissions.  If emissions of greenhouse gases
> continue at current rates and/or with the increases expected, by 2100 the
> projections for climate change will make the recent IPCC report look like
> Mr. Rogers Neighborhood...A meter of sea level rise?  Don't worry about
> that...Plan ahead for 50-100 feet...With wise real estate investments in the
> new coastlines.
> 
> There are two reports at the web links below.  One that examines a global
> approach to the costs of not addressing global warming, vs. addressing it,
> and another focusing on these issues in the US Northeast with two different
> emissions scenarios:
> ------------
> 
> Tuesday, October 31, 2006
> 
> Britain sees a climate crisis
> Britain issued a sweeping report Monday warning that the Earth faces a
> calamity on the scale of the world wars and the Great Depression unless
> urgent action is taken.
> 
> The 700-page report argues that environmentalism and economic growth can go
> hand in hand in the battle against global warming. But it also says that if
> no action is taken, rising sea levels, heavier floods and more intense
> droughts could displace 200 million people by the middle of the century.
> 
> The report said unabated climate change would eventually cost the equivalent
> of between 5 percent and 20 percent of global gross domestic product each
> year.
> 
> Stern said acting now to cut greenhouse gas emissions would cost about 1
> percent of global GDP each year. "The benefits of strong, early action
> considerably outweigh the costs," he said. "We can grow and be green."
> 
> Blair, Stern and Treasury chief Gordon Brown, who commissioned the report,
> emphasized that the battle against global warming can only succeed with the
> cooperation of major countries such as the United States and China.
> http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm
> 
> --------
> 
> CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (July 11, 2007)—If heat-trapping emissions are not
> significantly curtailed, global warming will substantially change critical
> aspects of the Northeast's character and economy, according to a new report
> by the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment (NECIA), a two-year
> collaboration between the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and a team of
> more than 50 scientists and economists. Near-term choices about energy,
> transportation, and land-use will largely determine the extent and severity
> of climate change.
> 
> One projected impact, that alone has massive economic implications:
> 
> More than 27 million people live in the bustling metropolitan areas of the
> Northeast (including Boston, New York City, and Philadelphia), and everyone
> feels the heat when summer temperatures soar into the 90s. The number of
> days over 90°F is projected to increase until, by the end of the century,
> some cities could experience nearly an entire summer with temperatures
> greater than 90°F under a higher-emission scenario. These projections also
> show a dramatic increase in the currently few but blisteringly hot days over
> 100°F.
> 
> States in the Northeast already have taken several important first steps.
> For example, all the states in the report except Pennsylvania have joined
> the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the first multistate,
> market-based plan to reduce heat-trapping emissions from power plants. Most
> states—Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
> York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island—also have renewable electricity
> standards requiring utilities to obtain a certain percentage of their power
> from clean, renewable sources such as wind, solar, and biomass. Connecticut,
> Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and
> Vermont have adopted California's law requiring vehicle tailpipe emissions
> reductions of approximately 30 percent below 2002 levels by 2016, beginning
> with the 2009 model year (with implementation contingent upon an EPA
> ruling).
> http://www.climatechoices.org/ne/resources_ne/nereport.html
> 
> http://www.climatechoices.org/ne/resources_ne/jump.jsp?path=/assets/documents/climatechoices/confronting-climate-change-in-the-u-s-northeast.pdf
> 
> ------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> 
> On 18 Oct 2007 17:55:36 -0400, lfalen at turbonet.com <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >   Newsweek <http://www.newsweek.com/>
> >  Sponsored by
> > <http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/newsweek.emailthis/emailthis;ad=88x31;tile=1;sz=88x31;ord=1409468735?>
> > Your friend, lfalen, wants you to check out this article: An Inconvenient
> > Price <http://www.newsweek.com/id/43352> Personal MessageHere is an
> > interesting article by George F. Will on glogal warming Roger
> >
> > =======================================================
> >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >               http://www.fsr.net
> >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >
> 
>