The Cost Of Global Warming? $515 Billion. Per Year

Time to pony up, True Believers. If you want it, you need to buy it

Clean energy investments of $515 billion per year is needed between now and 2030 or carbon emissions will reach levels deemed unsustainable by scientists. That is at least the conclusion participants in the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland make. Calling for global cooperation representatives and members of the World Economic Forum, Friday, issued a statement warning against complacency in the UN climate talks and urging the link of economy and climate agendas in 2009.

“Enormous investment in energy infrastructure is required to address the twin threats of energy insecurity and climate change”, said Max von Bismarck and Anuradha Gurung from the World Economic Forum, authors of the report Green Investing: Towards a Clean Energy Infrastructure. “In the light of the global financial crisis, it is crucial that every dollar is made to multitask to create a sustainable low-carbon economy”.

Hey, I am all for expanding alternative and clean energy sources, if they are cost effective, sustainable, and usable (and actually work,) but, this is ridiculous.

I’d like to know how they come up with a CO2 level that is “unsustainable.” There have been many times in the Earth’s history where CO2 has been much higher. During the Cretaceous and Jurassic periods Co2 levels were 4 to 5 times higher than they are today. Periods farther back have been upwards of twenty times higher.

Scam.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “The Cost Of Global Warming? $515 Billion. Per Year”

  1. John Ryan says:

    I think Teach that they mean “unsustainable” for life as we know it.

  2. All Scientific theories should be subject to debate. Only Flat-Earthers think it’s acceptable to declare that your side has a consensus and the debate is over. The truth is that very little in the science arena is truly settled. If you’d like a little balance in your scientific information diet, please click on the following link:

    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/videos.html

    If you’d like the names of a few thousand qualified scientists who disagree with global warming, please click on this link:

    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/globalwarming.html

    Sincerely,
    Dash RIPROCK III

  3. Reasic says:

    I’d like to know how they come up with a CO2 level that is “unsustainable.”

    No you wouldn’t. If you did, you’d research it — maybe look it up in the latest IPCC report. The information is out there. If you want to see it, go look it up.

    There have been many times in the Earth’s history where CO2 has been much higher. During the Cretaceous and Jurassic periods Co2 levels were 4 to 5 times higher than they are today. Periods farther back have been upwards of twenty times higher.

    Where do you keep finding these new simplistic denialist arguments? How about we focus on the issues that you’ve so far avoided first? Now, I’m going to supply you with a rebuttal, but I’m sure you’re going to ignore that, too, and continue on with your meaningless drivel.

    When during the Cretaceous and Jurassic periods were these CO2 levels from? At the end of each period, there was an extinction event. Is this when it was? Please ask ANY scientist if human life could’ve been supported during these periods.

  4. Exactly, John. And how do they determine the number?

    Silke, the extinction events had NOTHING to do with CO2 levels. Sheesh, watch National Geographic or History some time.

    I still notice that, despite your AGW belief, you do not change your lifestyle. Why is that?

  5. Silke says:

    Teach, that comment was from Reasic, not me. This speaks volumes about your level of attention to detail.

  6. Yeah, when one has a major cold, they are prone to mistakes. My Bad. I guess I am so used to debating with you, that I projected.

    Give up your SUV yet? 8;)

  7. Silke says:

    No, but then I don’t expect other people to give up their SUV either. It’s really too bad that we keep talking past each other on this issue because I really do want to understand your perspective on the science. There are certainly extreme positions on both sides of this debate but I’m not one of them. Nor, do I think, are you.

    Hope you feel better soon, Teach.

  8. Reasic says:

    Teach,

    So you know, there are theories of extinction events that involve a great release of greenhouse gases:

    http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/august8/payne-080807.html

    http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0329-extinction.html

    However, my point was not as much to state that this was the reason for the higher levels as it was to teach you to think critically. You simply took yet another simplistic “skeptical” argument and ran with it, without asking any questions of your own first. Most important to me, would be whether our current civilization as we know it could survive in the same circumstances. The correct answer, if you were truly interested in learning about climate objectively, is “no”.

    What you’ve apparently not considered is that there were no humans around in the Jurassic or Cretaceous periods. We currently have a certain level of human population living all over the world. Some are living in low-lying areas, and others in areas that are already drought prone. Now, if we continue to push our carbon dioxide levels to the level that they were in the pre-historic times you mentioned, we would see drastic increases in global temperatures, rising sea levels, melting ice and snow caps, and increased instances of drought, among other things. Rising sea levels would push people in low-lying areas further inland, which could result in overcrowding. A seasonal melting of ice caps serves as a source of fresh water for many communities, so if they disappeared, that would be a big problem as well. Also, more drought conditions would result in a loss of food in already vulnerable areas, which would result in starvation and armed conflict over scarce resources.

    So, no, we cannot sustain life as we know it with higher carbon dioxide levels. This requires a certain level of critical thinking to understand, which you so far have not demonstrated. Maybe we should start at square one (Sun and water vapor), instead of continually being presented with random denialist kool-aid. Please humor me and Silke with a simple scientific explanation of why the earth has warmed thus far, and follow through on the rebuttals that are provided.

  9. Silke says:

    Reasic is right. It’s important to be skeptical (even about one’s own beliefs and opinions). I used to be distrustful of nuclear power but after some research found that new generation reactors are much safer and more efficient then ever. It’s not the only solution to energy independence but it should be considered a viable part of it.

    Teach, I am more persuaded by evidence-based arguments than emotional appeals. Yes, there are some strange people out there with some ridiculous ideas about climate change and I have no doubt there are some people trying to make money off of this. The media perpetuates a lot of bad information, especially when it comes to science, but that has nothing to do with the scientific case for AGW.

    The more you post these kinds of stories the more I think you really aren’t interested in challenging your own beliefs and opinions – just reinforcing them.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7023 access attempts in the last 7 days.