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: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (136704)	4/15/2010 11:50:39 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543303

We already know how industry feels. Don Blankenship Called Safety Regulators ‘As Silly As Global Warming’ wonkroom.thinkprogress.org This is another thing too important to leave to politicians and economists, altho I wouldn't mind the cement industry testifying how much they will earn building a dike around Fla. Maybe Frigidaire can testify about the costs of putting solar powered freezing units on the arctic ice, and NASA can talk about putting sun screens out in space. Blankenship will tell you it's a jungle out there; industry can adapt or die. The Costs of Inaction are High Recent studies show that implementing available, affordable solutions will cost far less than inaction. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (2006) estimates that the international costs of unabated climate change is already at least five percent of global per capita GDP and will continue at this rate into the future, with estimates rising to 20 percent of GDP or more when accounting for a wider range of impacts. A Tufts University report, The Cost of Climate Change: What We’ll Pay if Global Warming Continues Unchecked, shows that doing nothing on global warming could cost the U.S. economy more than 3.6% of GDP (or $3.8 trillion) annually by 2100. Costs for just four categories of damage cited in the report were: Hurricane damages: $422 billion; Real estate losses: $360 billion; Increased energy costs: $141 billion; and Water Costs: $950 billion. A University of Maryland report, The U.S. Economic Impacts of Climate Change and the Costs of Inaction (2007), shows that unabated global warming could impose high costs across the United States, including the following: Northeast and Mid-Atlantic: $300 million to $8 billion to build sea wall protection along 25 percent of the coastline; Midwest: loss of many of the economically valuable timber species that sustain the $27 billion forestry industry; significant losses for the $5.7 billion dairy industry. The Great Plains: decline in agricultural productivity of 70 percent for soybeans and 10-50 percent for wheat. Northwest: A rise from $13 million to $79 million in crop losses in the Pacific Northwest by mid-century. In Washington, a 50 percent increase in the cost of suppressing forest fires by the 2020s. In Alaska, $450 million to relocate three vulnerable towns. California: 36 percent reduction in agricultural land value; $1.5 billion initial investment plus $152 million in annual maintenance to protect the San Francisco and Santa Barbara coasts from a one meter sea level rise; electricity costs increasing by $1.4 billion under moderate warming scenario; a 55 percent increase in forest fires. Southeast: Enormous increase in damages from extreme weather events, with the region already leading the country in natural disasters. We Can’t Afford to Delay Postponing action from 2010 to 2020 would require doubling the emission reduction rate to meet the mid-century goal of an 80 percent reduction, a challenge that could prove technologically and economically infeasible. Implementing a comprehensive, well-designed set of policies without delay would reduce costs by preserving flexibility for the economy. ucsusa.org