Climate change, within the last couple of decades, has become more certain to cost us perhaps billions or trillions of dollars, yet there are delays in addressing the problem to the proper degree.
As with so many other things, take heart health, for example, addressing the problem ahead of time may incur costs, but nothing like the costs associated with getting a heart transplant. Imagine, if you come from a family prone to heart problems, regular heart checkups, a proper diet and exercise regimen, may cost a few hundred dollars per year. On the other hand, you could just wait, a heart transplant, if one is even available, costing around one million dollars. Then, of course, you hope that you will survive the procedure. Addressing climate change is a similar problem, as in, how much will you pay, when will you pay, and will we survive the procedure?
For example, in an effort to address climate change, brought on by ever-increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) as well as regulators in other parts of the world, has put increasingly-strict emissions regulations on automobiles, manufacturing, industry, and power production facilities. Meeting regulations, however, is no easy task, costing perhaps billions of dollars in research and development, not to mention the possible economic impact of eliminating certain fossil fuels from our diet. On the one hand, it should come as no surprise that eliminating coal power plant emissions would ruin certain local economies, such as coal power plant operators and coal mining operations in Pennsylvania. On the other hand, it takes no stretch of the imagination to realize that those same coal miners and plant operators could get new jobs running renewable energy plants.
Is the effort worthwhile? According to Jason Furman, chairman of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, the upfront costs of developing reduced- or zero-emissions infrastructure is absolutely worthwhile. Certain studies, for example, suggest that future disaster recovery would exceed $500 billion annually, maintaining the status quo until 2050. That number is expected to rise exponentially every year afterward. On the other hand, if we spent the money now, developing renewable energy technologies, the effects of climate change can be curbed slightly. Mr. Furman suggests that, if we act now, we could save some 40% over future climate-change-fueled damages, saying, “We know way more than enough to justify acting today.”
Image © FreeDigitalPhotos.net
You have just got to love ignorant people, what renewable energy jobs? Wind? Solar? Where are the jobs? We cant manufacture in this country because labor costs are way to high and once a renewable energy plant is built three people can run it. No jobs! But that’s the beauty of solar and wind if you can afford to install it after that the cost of running it is almost nil because it just sits there and cranks out the kilowatts. So no these coal workers will not be able to get jobs in the renewable energy sector. You cant truck sunshine or wind, don’t need any barges to haul it down river. Try and make a list of industries that would be affected by removing coal it will be just about everyone. The smoke from coal plants is far less destructive than the anti-coal smoke being blown up everyone’s (beep). Remember all those jobs saved or created? No doubt there were some but not in this country and not outside of government. Just drop the “CHANGE” out of climate change and get real the climate has always been in a state of constant change and always will be. Improvise, adapt, overcome or perish it’s the way the world has worked since the world began. Destroying ourselves will not stop climate change it will simply remove those complaining about it.
DavidNutzuki only goes to show who owns the regulators. unless you’re in the business of change, and change in the right direction just isn’t good for business.
Deny this;
The remaining “believers” would have us believe that the scientific method prevents science from actually “saying” they are more than “95%” certain or say “proven” or “eventual” or “inevitable” even though it’s about saving the entire planet from a global climate crisis possibly caused by Human CO2. That’s why it’s called “belief”. History will call it exaggeration but generations of children will call it fear mongering.
Get up to date;
*Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians.
*Canada killed Y2Kyoto 2 years ago with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit). And what did YOU do about it planet lovers?