Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (71162)	6/8/2008 10:03:00 PM
From: spiral3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543149

No, I think it's because low-carbon energy technologies have value independent of GW. You have perhaps heard of peak oil, balance of payments, war, and asthma? If that helps with GW, more the better, but it has independent value. I give up. <g> I suppose it can have independent value if want to see it in that static way. Energy breakthroughists want to reduce reliance on carbon technologies as the main weapon against GW. That #14 had something to do with reducing GW is a pretty safe bet in my book. The dilemma is particularly vexing because we have the perfect storm of conditions. I'll leave it at that. Indeed. We need more work in that area. The problem is that the people who are interested enough in GW to put the effort into studying it can't imagine non-action as a possibility. And perhaps they don't see any advantage in knowing, particularly if the cost isn't that high. So they don't bother studying it and we don't have a clue what they are. And we can't approach the problem rationally until we know. How do you know all this ? What follows is a quote: Studies show that the cost of taking action is much lower than the cost of inaction. The Stern Review on Economics of Climate Change examined this issue in depth. [http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm] From the short version of the executive summary [PDF]: Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever… In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year. Other studies confirm that the cost of reducing emissions will be around 1 percent of GDP. A study by McKinsey found that the annual worldwide cost of reducing emissions would be 0.6 to 1.4 percent of GDP in 2030, berc.berkeley.edu ] From: environmentaldefenseblogs.org You can still have the last word.