Here’s the United Nations
Cutting greenhouse-gas emissions to slow global warming and adapting to impacts such as droughts and rising sea levels are likely to cost about $300 billion a year, the top UN climate change official said.
Yvo de Boer also told Reuters on Tuesday, on the sidelines of Aug. 10-14 UN climate talks in Bonn, that cuts in emissions by 2020 so far promised by rich nations were “miles away” from long-term goals set by a Group of Eight summit last month.
“Over time, according to my own analysis, we are going to need $200 billion a year for mitigation and probably in the order of $100 billion a year for adaptation . . . from 2020 onwards,” he said.
Any guesses as to which country will end up paying the most, if Democras have their way?
Kyoto Protocol signaturies have already spent enormous amounts of money, as well as reducing their economies, to fight what is really a natural process. And the vast majority of those countries did not even come close to the goals set forth. But, you know, with Liberals, it is intentions that count, not results. And, about those results
Reuters reported that the global carbon dioxide output in 2008 was 1.94 percent higher than in 2007. You can see that in 2008, the CO2 growth probably exceeded the GDP growth. Under normal circumstances, the CO2 growth may be equal to the GDP growth minus 1 percentage point or so (because of the gradually increasing “carbon efficiency” of the economy).
The CO2 growth seems identical to the growth before the Kyoto protocol (and it has accumulated to a 40% jump since 1990) which means that the hundreds of billions of dollars – and surely trillions if you add them up – have been completely wasted even if you were imagining that modified CO2 emissions could detectably influence the climate which they can’t.
You know what has cost more but worked much better? Counting hurricanes (h/t Watts Up With That?)
A NOAA-led team of scientists has found that the apparent increase in the number of tropical storms and hurricanes since the late 19th and early 20th centuries is likely attributable to improvements in observational tools and analysis techniques that better detect short-lived storms.
“The recent jump in the number of short-lived systems is likely a consequence of improvements in observational tools and analysis techniques,†said Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami, and lead author on the study. “The team is not aware of any natural variability or greenhouse warming-induced climate change that would affect the short-lived tropical storms exclusively.â€
Someone is going to get beat with an ugly stick for not sticking with the Proscribed Man Is Evil talking points.
It will cost nearly $8 billion over the next decade to pay for the expanded federal bureaucracy needed to combat global warming under a bill passed by the House of Representatives, a report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says.
In terms of the US government, that’s not a lot of money. Heck, it works out to about $2.60 extra per American. But, for the those of us who live in the Real World, that’s a ton of money to pay for people who really do not do any work of consequence. Add it on top of all the other rising costs from the AGW legislation, and pennies become $100 bills. Plus all the extra taxes. Such as raising property taxes, which Billy Jeff recommends.
Well, I was going to add one of those bathing suit signs of global warming photo’s, since my fingers went wild with the headline, but, Photobucket is down at the moment. Maybe later.
