5 ms·

There is a very clear link between GDP per capita and life expectancy, literacy, health, and a host of other social benefits. Holding back the industrialization

There is a very clear link between GDP per capita and life expectancy, literacy, health, and a host of other social benefits. Holding back the industrialization of the world for potential far-off benefits has very real human costs now, in the present. If we wait 5 years to sign a Global Warming treaty, nobody will die. If we take trillions from the global economy to mitigate gas emissions that turn out to be harmless, many will. The conservative thing to do is to gather data before making trillion-dollar changes to the global economy, while spending money on moderate cost green energy research (but not billion-dollar ethanol mandates).

Retric 17y ago
Climate change has already killed people. Suggesting that waiting five years will kill nobody is begging the question. Now has it killed significantly more people than it has saved, and will waiting 5 years make a significant long term difference is debatable, but you can't just assume your answer and move on. Also, a 20-40% reduction in greenhouse gasses would (if done efficiently) cost less than 1 trillion over the next 20. years. (Multiply the cost Delta between electricity produced with coal to that produced non C02 producing options over their lifetime.) PS: I often see people use the term "begging the question incorrectly" so I felt the need to point it out. Edit: Wow, lots of hate. Do the math 1,000,000 * 1 million $ is a LOT of money, and coal plants have a finite lifetime.
- Retric 17y ago
  There seems to be a fear of what reducing carbon emission would cost the world require giving up our modern lifestyle however, if we chose to mitigate at the least painful manor we can still do a lot. EX: Coal fires in China burn 109 million tons of coal a year, emitting 360 million metric tons of CO2. This contradicts the ratio of 1:1.83 given earlier, but it amounts to 2-3% of the annual worldwide production of CO2 from fossil fuels, or as much as emitted from all of the cars and light trucks in the United States.[44] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal Stopping that would do more than requiring every American to drive a hybrid to work and yet it's ignored.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
bballant 17y ago
But there is no clear link between GDP and carbon emissions. For example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU. The idea that investing in alternative energy and the like will cost jobs or even lives is total bunk. If we can create a market around things we don't need (like gourmet potato chips) then we can create a market around things we do need, like clean air and water.
- w00pla 17y ago
  > For example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU The biggest reason for this is France which generates the majority of its power (80%+) from nuclear power stations. The environmentalists were extremely successful in the 70ies and 80ies to ensure that the USA does not use nuclear power. Since then their coal power stations have done untold damage to human health (particulate matter, mercury, sulphur emissions, etc...).
  - bballant 17y ago
    France generates the majority of their power from nuclear power stations, but it is certainly not the "biggest reason" the EU's CO2 emissions are half of the US's.
    - w00pla 17y ago
      Of course there are other reasons. The United states is more affluent which means that more people will drive cars. The USA also has a lower population density which means that CO2 caused by transportation would be lower. Many countries (such as Germany and some Eastern European countries) use natural gas in electricity generation in some places. This has lower carbon emissions, yet is substantially more expensive. It would also be interesting to consider CO2 imports and exports (if you buy a product that was manufactured in another country, then you import CO2). As an example, power hungry aluminium smelters are located where electricity is the cheapest. Yet everybody uses aluminium. I would also like a citation for the “example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU.” statement.

Retric 17y ago

Climate change has already killed people. Suggesting that waiting five years will kill nobody is begging the question. Now has it killed significantly more people than it has saved, and will waiting 5 years make a significant long term difference is debatable, but you can't just assume your answer and move on. Also, a 20-40% reduction in greenhouse gasses would (if done efficiently) cost less than 1 trillion over the next 20. years. (Multiply the cost Delta between electricity produced with coal to that produced non C02 producing options over their lifetime.) PS: I often see people use the term "begging the question incorrectly" so I felt the need to point it out. Edit: Wow, lots of hate. Do the math 1,000,000 * 1 million $ is a LOT of money, and coal plants have a finite lifetime.

Retric 17y ago
There seems to be a fear of what reducing carbon emission would cost the world require giving up our modern lifestyle however, if we chose to mitigate at the least painful manor we can still do a lot. EX: Coal fires in China burn 109 million tons of coal a year, emitting 360 million metric tons of CO2. This contradicts the ratio of 1:1.83 given earlier, but it amounts to 2-3% of the annual worldwide production of CO2 from fossil fuels, or as much as emitted from all of the cars and light trucks in the United States.[44] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal Stopping that would do more than requiring every American to drive a hybrid to work and yet it's ignored.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

bballant 17y ago

But there is no clear link between GDP and carbon emissions. For example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU. The idea that investing in alternative energy and the like will cost jobs or even lives is total bunk. If we can create a market around things we don't need (like gourmet potato chips) then we can create a market around things we do need, like clean air and water.

w00pla 17y ago
> For example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU The biggest reason for this is France which generates the majority of its power (80%+) from nuclear power stations. The environmentalists were extremely successful in the 70ies and 80ies to ensure that the USA does not use nuclear power. Since then their coal power stations have done untold damage to human health (particulate matter, mercury, sulphur emissions, etc...).
- bballant 17y ago
  France generates the majority of their power from nuclear power stations, but it is certainly not the "biggest reason" the EU's CO2 emissions are half of the US's.
  - w00pla 17y ago
    Of course there are other reasons. The United states is more affluent which means that more people will drive cars. The USA also has a lower population density which means that CO2 caused by transportation would be lower. Many countries (such as Germany and some Eastern European countries) use natural gas in electricity generation in some places. This has lower carbon emissions, yet is substantially more expensive. It would also be interesting to consider CO2 imports and exports (if you buy a product that was manufactured in another country, then you import CO2). As an example, power hungry aluminium smelters are located where electricity is the cheapest. Yet everybody uses aluminium. I would also like a citation for the “example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU.” statement.