Economic consequences of combating climate change

[CAS138]

Assuming that climate change is indeed anthropomorphic and occurring, do you believe that we should take urgent action to curb green house gas emissions? These types of environmental policies would harm economic growth, so is it worth it during a period of economic struggle? Another thing that we have to consider is if such policies would even have an impact, or if we'd be sacrificing economic growth for nothing, increasing unemployment and poverty for no good reason. I say this because no matter what we do, emissions in countries like China and India will continue to increase. Also, do you think that we should invest significantly in green technologies, during a period when our national debt continues to expand at such an alarming pace? If you do not believe that the government should impose strict environmental regulations or invest in green technologies, what alternatives would you suggest to solve this problem?

[Chloe]

Assuming that climate change is indeed anthropomorphic and occurring, do you believe that we should take urgent action to curb green house gas emissions? These types of environmental policies would harm economic growth, so is it worth it during a period of economic struggle? Another thing that we have to consider is if such policies would even have an impact, or if we'd be sacrificing economic growth for nothing, increasing unemployment and poverty for no good reason. I say this because no matter what we do, emissions in countries like China and India will continue to increase. Also, do you think that we should invest significantly in green technologies, during a period when our national debt continues to expand at such an alarming pace? If you do not believe that the government should impose strict environmental regulations or invest in green technologies, what alternatives would you suggest to solve this problem?

Assuming that if climate change is man-made then yes without a doubt we should take urgent action. Actually even if it isn't we should still take urgent action to improve the planet for the future. Without a healthy environment that supports all life then all other issues of today like the debt, unemployment, and all that will be pretty much meaningless in my opinion. We also can't base everything we do, or don't do for that matter, on what China and India are doing. Two wrongs do not make a right and if we are doing the right thing then at least we are showing some sort of integrity and responsibility that could hopefully change minds.

I think that the more that communities come together to improve the health of their immediate surroundings then it will grow throughout the country and then hopefully the world. You will always have people who are selfish and just flat out do not care about the planet, themselves, or others, but we certainly can't make our decisions based on their apathy in my opinion. Renewable energy is the future, it's not fossil fuels. A clean and sustainable planet is the future, not a dirty and used up one. Once people start to see that what they do can and will affect the environment and life around them then I think change will start, but unfortunately there are too many people right now that are so caught up in the status quo that they will allow everything to fall apart in order to cling to the past. It's pretty frustrating but I do think that at the end of the day people will start to come around.

[Peter1469]

Welcome to tPF.

No urgent action is needed. The more reasonable climate models have the earth warming 1 degree C per 100 years. We have much more more pressing pollution issues to deal with. Technology will solve the fossil fuel issue.

[zelmo1234]

Not a believer in Climate change, but do think that it is a good thing to be great stewards of the enviroment.

However the way the left is going about it once again will most likely be the end of the current green movment once again.

Forceing policies on people tends to turn them off. The same tactic of tryong to force green energy on the public was tried in the 1970's the public rejected it because it was too expensive, I suspect that history will rerpeat itself!

[Chloe]

Welcome to tPF.

No urgent action is needed. The more reasonable climate models have the earth warming 1 degree C per 100 years. We have much more more pressing pollution issues to deal with. Technology will solve the fossil fuel issue.

technology could solve it if not for the fact that the major oil companies pretty much rule the world when it comes to what energy we use. I do agree though that there are a lot of other pressing pollution issues to deal with in addition to this.

[Peter1469]

We could turn all waste products into fuel if we wanted to. With 18th century chemical engineering; of course we could do it better with newer tech.

[CAS138]

Thanks for all the replies! Peter1469, thanks for the welcome! Out of curiosity, which models are you talking about? The models I've seen show significantly higher changes. For example, the WTO has predicted a change in 1.4 to 6.4 degrees Celsius. Do you think that numbers like that are inaccurate, and if so, why? Also, when you say that technology will solve the fossil fuel issue, what exactly do you mean?

Zelmo1234, why don't you believe in climate change? Also, you say that you don't like the left's current attempts at provoking environmentalism. What strategies do you think would work instead?

[zelmo1234]

We could turn all waste products into fuel if we wanted to. With 18th century chemical engineering; of course we could do it better with newer tech.

I really wish we would spend the money on reasearch into the green technologies. instead of trying to force it on the american people and subsidising companies that have no market!

Only by finding the alternative fuel that lowers costs, will it stand a chance to rival oil!

[Chloe]

I really wish we would spend the money on reasearch into the green technologies. instead of trying to force it on the american people and subsidising companies that have no market!

Only by finding the alternative fuel that lowers costs, will it stand a chance to rival oil!

Isn't oil forced on us?

[zelmo1234]

Thanks for all the replies! Peter1469, thanks for the welcome! Out of curiosity, which models are you talking about? The models I've seen show significantly higher changes. For example, the WTO has predicted a change in 1.4 to 6.4 degrees Celsius. Do you think that numbers like that are inaccurate, and if so, why? Also, when you say that technology will solve the fossil fuel issue, what exactly do you mean?

Zelmo1234, why don't you believe in climate change? Also, you say that you don't like the left's current attempts at provoking environmentalism. What strategies do you think would work instead?

First there is a lot of funny business in the cliamte change reasearch.

http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot....m-exposed.html I tend to really question things when people try ot hide the facts.

The polar bear photos are fake too, and then you have the fact that as the glaciers receid in greenland they are uncomvering mine and runes of old vilages?

Now if it were up to me, rather than forcing energies that are 2 and 3 times the price of fossil fuels, I would allocat the billionos of dollars into reasearch and developement. I would use the US university system so that this technology could not be patented, or purchased by the oil companies and kept from the public. By using the Universities we could take advantage of young minds like Chloe's and get the most fo out dollar.

Eventually they would discover the technology that will make green energy the cheaper alternative, and then the people will demand it!