Study: $45 Trillion Investment Needed To Fight Global Warming

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Study: $45 Trillion Investment Needed To Fight Global Warming stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

JOSEPH COLEMAN | June 6, 2008 07:06 AM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It

TOKYO — The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.

The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a "energy revolution" that would greatly reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth.

"Meeting this target of 50 percent cut in emissions represents a formidable challenge, and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said.

A U.N.-network of scientists concluded last year that emissions have to be cut by at least half by 2050 to avoid an increase in world temperatures of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees above pre-18th century levels.

Scientists say temperature increases beyond that could trigger devastating effects, such as widespread loss of species, famines and droughts, and swamping of heavily populated coastal areas by rising oceans.

Environment ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized countries and Russia backed the 50 percent target in a meeting in Japan last month and called for it to be officially endorsed at the G-8 summit in July.

The IEA report mapped out two main scenarios: one in which emissions are reduced to 2005 levels by 2050, and a second that would bring them to half of 2005 levels by mid-century.

The scenario for deeper cuts would require massive investment in energy technology development and deployment, a wide-ranging campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency, and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy.

Story continues below
advertisement

Assuming an average 3.3 percent global economic growth over the 2010-2050 period, governments and the private sector would have to make additional investments of $45 trillion in energy, or 1.1 percent of the world's gross domestic product, the report said.

That would be an investment more than three times the current size of the entire U.S. economy.

The second scenario also calls for an accelerated ramping up of development of so-called "carbon capture and storage" technology allowing coal-powered power plants to catch emissions and inject them underground.

The study said that an average of 35 coal-powered plants and 20 gas-powered power plants would have to be fitted with carbon capture and storage equipment each year between 2010 and 2050.

In addition, the world would have to construct 32 new nuclear power plants each year, and wind-power turbines would have to be increased by 17,000 units annually. Nations would have to achieve an eight-fold reduction in carbon intensity _ the amount of carbon needed to produce a unit of energy _ in the transport sector.

Such action would drastically reduce oil demand to 27 percent of 2005 demand. Failure to act would lead to a doubling of energy demand and a 130 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, IEA officials said.

"This development is clearly not sustainable," said Dolf Gielen, an IEA energy analyst and leader for the project.

Gielen said most of the $45 trillion forecast investment _ about $27 trillion _ would be borne by developing countries, which will be responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Most of the money would be in the commercialization of energy technologies developed by governments and the private sector.

"If industry is convinced there will be policy for serious, deep CO2 emission cuts, then these investments will be made by the private sector," Gielen said.

TOKYO — The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,...
TOKYO — The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,...
Filed by Katherine Thomson  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
657
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last » (6 pages total)
- teembee I'm a Fan of teembee 4 fans permalink

I have to hand it to the whacko enviro-terrorists. They have successfully infiltrated the political system to the point that restrictions are so onerous that virtually nothing can be built anymore. They wont be happy until our economic system collapses.­..........­..and that is exactly what they want.
The end of that road takes us to a place that will resemble a feudal society.
The ironic part of that is that when we reach that point, people will be burning coal to stay warm......­.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:53 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

"hey wont be happy until our economic system collapses.­..........­..and that is exactly what they want."

...and then they'll blame it on the opposition.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:57 PM on 06/06/2008
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 159 fans permalink

Who is they? Is there are some evil conspiracy going on that only you and a few other know about?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:27 AM on 06/09/2008
- mouselion I'm a Fan of mouselion 123 fans permalink
photo

The ironic parts are:
- A lot of coal is already being burned to stay warm.
- Because conservative refused to let change what need to be changed 30-40 years ago, and then added to the problem by grossly mis-managing the nation the past eight years, we're to the point where we can't afford to build anything -- no matter what.
- Reaganomics and neoconservatism have been doing their best to turn us into a feudal society since at least 1980.
I don't about "whacko enviro-terrorists", but, I do know I'm glad that rational people will once again be running the country.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:00 PM on 06/06/2008
- loki I'm a Fan of loki 134 fans permalink
photo

I guess its better than the whacko Greed at all cost terrorist who will destroy everything to reap the personal rewards of profit from the earth. Honestly though, I think there needs to be a balance, and both sides are so over zealous, it will never happen. Greed vs. Need.. It will be interesting to see who will win. I have a feeling it will be greed, and the earth will end up with huge piles of money being blown around on sand dunes and desolate land masses that are completely void of life... But at least the greed will feel they won the game.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:01 PM on 06/06/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 27 fans permalink

"I have to hand it to the whacko enviro-ter­rorists...­"

Clearly there's no reason to read further.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:02 PM on 06/06/2008
- teembee I'm a Fan of teembee 4 fans permalink

What? You dont believe there is such a thing?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:29 PM on 06/06/2008
- speakeasy I'm a Fan of speakeasy 3 fans permalink

Yeah I know what you mean. Those pesky greeners helped make the air cleaner, our waters clearer and want to make sure we don't kill fellow Americans so corporations can make a buck. I think you'll find most Dems/progressives are very pro-business, where we differ is the fact that you can still make money by doing the right thing.

Case in point- We have a coal terminal in my area. I read that we export a lot of this coal out and later I read where we import coal as well. I was perplexed and did some research. It seems that what we were shipping was dirtier than usual coal, so we sent to countries who don't care about pollution and then we imported cleaner coal from yet another country. I know the trolls are scratching their heads saying "so, told ya those greenies cause stuff like that". The energy companies, who are turning profits in the billions, didn't want to spend the money for already proven technology that would better scrub the dirty coal. So we shipped it and had a double whammy of waste, 1. How much energy was wasted shipping across the world. 2. 1/2 of that coal transaction was burned with zero pollution controls. Sigh... Ethics and common sense are what we are about. There gotta be a good honest and healthy way to make a buck, isnt there?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:01 PM on 06/06/2008
- loki I'm a Fan of loki 134 fans permalink
photo

I dont know where that photo was taken that Hufpo is using for the link to this story, but it looks like the Republican and Corporate Americas dream come true of a world stripped of all its resources for profit and war. Hmmmm, it also looks like parts of the USSR not long before their collapse. We need more Ivy Greed Educated people in seats of great power. We just are not destroying the planet quick enough to make the profits they want...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:53 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

Maybe they took it fro Day After Tomorrow!

They had such good CGI effects that even Al Gore stole them for his award winning PowerPoint.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:55 PM on 06/06/2008

You got to give it to Al Gore... he is much better than you at making his case. He won an Oscar and the Nobel Price. Did they even tell you when they fumigated your parent's basement last time?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:13 PM on 06/06/2008
- shockmagog I'm a Fan of shockmagog 139 fans permalink
photo

Day After Tomorrow

A Fox film. I like the only caveat I've ever seen before the start of any film that makes absolutely sure the viewer knows the movie is intended for entertainment purposes only. Simply hilarious.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:05 AM on 06/07/2008
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 159 fans permalink

You resent Gore so much because why? He was correct about global warming and considerably ahead of his time. He would have never taken us into this insane war in Iraq. Only a real slow-witted person at this point makes any case at all for george Bush.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:25 AM on 06/09/2008
photo

ATTENTION CLIMATE-CHANGE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS:

Have a look at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-brendan-demelle/unearthed-news-of-the-wee_b_105693.html

You'll read there about how Bush's own climate change study, long overdue and forced out by court order, affirms that IT IS BAD.

Some other interesting stuff as well, such as how Bush and Co. suppressed and rewrote NASA studies on climate change.

Do please take the time to read the whole thing.

See you over there.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:51 PM on 06/06/2008
- shockmagog I'm a Fan of shockmagog 139 fans permalink
photo

Thanks for that.

But I'm afraid the Global Warming contrarians and Bush acolytes are only interested in propaganda the Bush Administration intends for them to see. In other words, it has to fit into their pre-circumscribed world view, and it must be dumbed-down quite considerably.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:08 AM on 06/07/2008
photo

Folks, this is a MUST READ. It's a transcript of one of the floor speeches debating the stupid Lieberman Warner bill, which is gonna die again, thank GOD.

"And yes, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of prominent scientists and meteorologists, the heads of science departments at major universities, and others, who are highly critical of the man-made global warming theory. There is Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has been adamant in his opposition, as has a Bjarne Andresen of the University of Copenhagen, Adreas Prokoph, a professor of earth sciences at the University of Ottawa, Dr. William Gray, a famous hurricane expert and former President of the American Meteorological Association, and Dr. Kevin Trenberth, the head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center of Atmospheric Research. All of these are respected scholars, all skeptical of the unwarranted alarmism that we are being pressured to accept."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:50 PM on 06/06/2008

Let's face it, world oil production is entering a decline, and oil production will decline forever. At the same time, world demand for oil is increasing, and so is world population. World food production is directly tied to world oil production, and as oil production declines so will food production and the human race. The whole issue is, how soon can alternative energy sources come into play and how much pain and suffering can they prevent? With mass starvation just over the horizon, global warming may be the least of the world's worries.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:12 PM on 06/06/2008
- UnbiasView I'm a Fan of UnbiasView 20 fans permalink

Well we could start by allowing someone, anyone in the USA to build a nuclear plant or hydro plant without 10 years of going through government BS.

Maybe even try getting our own oil because oil is not the goal but itisa the bridge and why we hold ourselves hostage is beyond me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:20 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

Or how about building a new oil refinery?

Or sinking a new oil well?

Right now the only limit on energy production, is the Environmentalists

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:25 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

TimSlagle is exactly correct. Democrats and far-left environmentalists have apposed every effort to drill oil wells off of all of our coasts and inland, have fought and protested against every attempt to build a Nuclear Reactor or oil refinery, are raising hell when anyone tries erecting wind towers because they don't like how they look and birds crash into them.
The Chinese are now drilling in the Caribbean the oil we decided we didn't want. The oil in Alaska remains untouched because we don't want to piss off a caribou.
It's crap like this that actually makes a lot of people wonder if liberalism is some sort of mental disorder.
There's a saying in the Army "there are no atheists in fox holes".
It's going to be damned unpopular to be a liberal if the shit hits the fan.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:50 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

It's not the "government". It's left-wing wacko's that value a salamander over your need to heat your home.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:51 PM on 06/06/2008
- shockmagog I'm a Fan of shockmagog 139 fans permalink
photo

We need more deregulation to get things moving again.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:02 PM on 06/06/2008
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 159 fans permalink

Can I build a nuclear power plant in my backyard?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:35 AM on 06/09/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 27 fans permalink

Imagine how much further along we'd be in alternative energy, and in reducing CO2 emissions, if the anti-science neo-luddites hadn't thrown up road block after road block against the warnings every step of the way.

Here's a sobering thought:
As oil gets more and more expensive, so will building its replacement. And the longer you stretch it out the more expensive it will be, and the less time you have to do it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:33 PM on 06/06/2008
- mouselion I'm a Fan of mouselion 123 fans permalink
photo

What you are saying makes a lot of sense.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:11 PM on 06/06/2008
- loki I'm a Fan of loki 134 fans permalink
photo

Food production is a major problem that is for sure, and oil prices and decline of resources contribute to that. I know for years in the midwest there was a drive to try to convince legislators to stop allowing strip malls and subdivisions to be built on some of the richest farming soil in our country. But as usual, Greed won out and now we have endless miles of so called development and less real farm land. Sure, a few of the farmers kids who inherited the farm got rich, and most of them are likely broke again, and a lot of developers got rich, and a lot of politicians got rich and re-elected. But in the end, the country continues to lose.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:56 PM on 06/06/2008
- vmonter I'm a Fan of vmonter 2 fans permalink

You know what's funny about this?

It costs money to build the machines that destroy the planet. So, ostensibly, you can save the planet by simply not doing the things that destroy the planet. Therefore, saving the planet should SAVE money not COST money.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:06 PM on 06/06/2008
- UnbiasView I'm a Fan of UnbiasView 20 fans permalink

So stop making machines?

Do you have a spear I can borrow then because I need to eat.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:16 PM on 06/06/2008

You're getting the idea. Before the industrialized age, man produced or acquired his food using energy derived from that food. Today man produces or acquires food using energy derived from oil. When that oil is gone, man will again return to his roots, and so will global warming...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:17 PM on 06/06/2008
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 159 fans permalink

Yes, I have an extra spear.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:58 AM on 06/09/2008
photo

Yes, but the "machines that destroy the planet."

Also make the money. Because money only has value, when it can be exchanged for stuff. Take that away, and it is worthless paper.

So "saving the planet" will not "SAVE money."

It will ruin it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:22 PM on 06/06/2008
- mouselion I'm a Fan of mouselion 123 fans permalink
photo

Then, you wouldn't need to worry about the value of the money -- because your economy changed and would now be based on something other than oil and machinery.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:54 PM on 06/06/2008
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 159 fans permalink

Well, sounds like Bushian logic to me, Slagle. Man, are you gone!!! So saving money will ruin the planet and then I guess spending it will save the planet. Have you ever considered a career as a financial counselor. Tell your clients "saving will destroy you."

You know Slagle, I think you have an interestig affliction never seen in recorded science. Whatever anyone says before you, you feel you must say the opposite. If I say the universe is a giant kitten, you will say it is a doggie.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:53 AM on 06/09/2008

The weirdest thing is that the people who are against "green tech" and "alternative energy" are also against the one and only non-exportable source of long term jobs in the US.

You don't want to pay for it, I get it. The question is, where are you going to find work with all the blue collar jobs going away? Any clues? Here is a field that offers $45 trillion worth of salaries. If you are any smart, you will scream for it and you will ask your Congressmen to double and triple it.

Question is... are you that smart? Is your Congressman?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:39 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

What precisely is the "IT" you are referring to?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:54 PM on 06/06/2008
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 159 fans permalink

What about the pixies? I hear O'Reilly calls many people a Nazi? Have you heard that?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:00 AM on 06/09/2008
- lfotweaker I'm a Fan of lfotweaker 4 fans permalink

45 Trillion, to get rid of plant food... like Mao's campaign against the sparrows.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:22 PM on 06/06/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 27 fans permalink

The voice of ignorance.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:26 PM on 06/06/2008

If $45 trillion would get us rid of people with failed education, I would gladly pay for that, too.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:27 PM on 06/06/2008
- EvSmith I'm a Fan of EvSmith 7 fans permalink

45,000,000­,000,000??­??? This is only to cut emissions in half? We might be fucked.
Thank you very much Reagan Democrats( among others). I doubt it was worth it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:58 PM on 06/06/2008
- Chris I'm a Fan of Chris 12 fans permalink

HEre is the problem in the US. Many of the people who want to save us from gloabl warming are the ones who will never allow a nuclear power plant to be bult in the US.

Let's take my hoem state fo Maine for example. There is no way Maine Yankee will ever be back online. Within the past year the same people who want to end global warming killed attempts to build wind farms in the remote moutain ranges of western Maine.

No to mention the wind farm off of Cape Cod that would help but will never happen.

So please environmentalist tell me what you want us to do.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:54 PM on 06/06/2008
- HumeSkeptic I'm a Fan of HumeSkeptic 1625 fans permalink
photo

There are extemists on both sides.

There is nothing wrong in principle, with nuclear power plants. Power plant safety and nuclear waste disposal are the issues. Great progress has been achied in plant safety. More needs to be done regarding waste.

The answers lie in science and ingenuity. It can be done.

I am not familiar with the details of "Main Yankee". generally speaking, all power plants in the U.S. are old (most have passed their design life). That is old technology, and not as safe as current technology.

Making old plants reasonably safe is a huge cost issue. Industry is not willing to accept the cost. Environmentalists (the reasonable ones) are unwilling to accept the risk of plants with known safety issues, for good reason.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:08 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

This conversation has been going on now for decades.

So.... when do you figure it would be OK with environmentalists for us to start?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:09 PM on 06/06/2008

"So please environmentalist tell me what you want us to do."

You could start by screwing in a few CFLs and by driving a hybrid. Makes a huge difference and neither create any radiation.

It's not an "either-or". We can do both. The main reason nuclear is being held up in the US is not environmentalism but NIMBY. Most everybody wants cheap energy, just not that nuclear plant anywhere near where they live. Nuclear power has another real disadvantage politically: it does not create jobs. That's very different from alternative energy and conservation.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:16 PM on 06/06/2008
- mouselion I'm a Fan of mouselion 123 fans permalink
photo

We aren't building nuclear power plants because:

a. Very expensive to build, and cheap energy from them has turned out to be a lie.
b. Expensive maintain, while a huge problem when they start to age.
c. We do stupid things like build them on fault lines and truck their waste for thousands of miles because nobody wants the stuff once they benefit from the energy (waste should stay where it was produced or should not be produced).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:15 PM on 06/06/2008

Not all environmentalists are against nuclear energy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:46 PM on 06/06/2008
- UnbiasView I'm a Fan of UnbiasView 20 fans permalink

The one's that aren't have no power, hence no nuclear power option was even in the cap & trade bill and it takes at least 10 years to get a nuclear plant built in this country.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:05 PM on 06/06/2008

so what is the alternative for the human specie? Let'he save the money, effort and die!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:51 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

For those out there who think global warming "deniers" are a bunch of Limbaugh-ers, the National Post (Canada) has a whole series devoted to scientists actively debunking the global warming conventionial wisdom:
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:44 PM on 06/06/2008
- HumeSkeptic I'm a Fan of HumeSkeptic 1625 fans permalink
photo

Give us some peer reviewed articles published in repectable science journals, not some kooky web site.

Listen, what it boils down to is you having a scientific mindset and accepting scientific facts, or you having a liking for bunk.

It is really your choice. Science and scientists care less what you want to believe in. They do research and report results. Once verified, those results become accepted as scientific facts, regardless of what your web site says.

You know, there are still people who believe that the earth is flat. Do you think that that changes anything?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:59 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

There are plenty of people that believe the earth is 6000 years old. Some even become
head the Texas State Board of Education (Dr. Don McLeroy).

This only as an example how widespread, even in public responsibilities, ignorance and stupidity is these days.

What a pain.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:21 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

Peer reviewed:

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/page.php?8

A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice

A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate

Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model

Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr

Progress in Physical Geography 27,3 (2003) pp. 448–455
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Effects of bias in solar radiative transfer codes on global climate model simulations
Albert Arking - Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future

On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?

This is just a few of them. Mind you, I'm probably one of a handful of people here who does "all" (snort) the "right" things to reduce my carbon footprint, from driving a hybrid to growing my own food. The bottom line is that climate change is being USED as an opportunity for social engineering, and I resent it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:46 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

I live in Canada. The National Post is 100% neocon. It would be higher than 100% if that were mathematically possible.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:08 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

That's interesting, because the neocons in the US are on the global warming bandwagon. Lieberman and McCain are neocons, for instance.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:40 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

I'm from Canada as well. Canadian media of all sorts is so far left and anti American that Marx would seem like Bill O'Reilly to most Canadians. Hell, the media is so tightly controlled that they routinely block such radical American publications as Playboy and Reader's Digest from coming into the country!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:14 PM on 06/06/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 27 fans permalink

Never link to actual scientific research papers when a perfectly good op-ed piece is available.

The National Post -
- giving Faux News a run for it's money ever since being founded by Conrad Black.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:11 PM on 06/06/2008
- Skepticat I'm a Fan of Skepticat 61 fans permalink
photo

The recurring theme of National Post editorials seems to be that the rich are cruelly exploited and don't have enough money or that Conrad Black can do no wrong. Ecological themes in this paper oppose global warming because it's bad for smokestack industries.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:08 PM on 06/06/2008
- UnbiasView I'm a Fan of UnbiasView 20 fans permalink

The Green movement guarentees one thing: we will pass along a lower standard of life to our children for the first time in our history.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:37 PM on 06/06/2008

Actually..­. it's not the green movement that guarantees that but the Baby Boomers. Thanks, guys, we appreciate it.

PS: it's not the first time in history by a long shot. Do you think the later generations in the Roman empire were living nearly as well as their predecessors who messed it up with endless war? Hardly... but then, you don't care much about historical facts, right?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:46 PM on 06/06/2008
- HumeSkeptic I'm a Fan of HumeSkeptic 1625 fans permalink
photo

Bunk.

Do you have fact or data to support that?

Of course not. It's just something that you heard someone say on the radio and you liked the way it sounded, for some reason.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:47 PM on 06/06/2008

Actually, that has already happened and without any help at all from the "Green movement". Conservative economic ploicies, begun during Nancy Reagan's presidency began the process and the Republican­-controled House continued them. Baby Bush put the cherry on top and this nation is now so hopelessly mired in debt (to the Chinese communisits!!!) that a baby born today is already more than $40,000 in debt.

Seems to me that, if we're going to stick it to our children in the name of comfort and convenience today, the least we could do is take steps to ensure that they will at least inherit a planet that will still be capable of supporting life tomorrow.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:59 PM on 06/06/2008
- Skepticat I'm a Fan of Skepticat 61 fans permalink
photo

Even if the green movement and liberals bloggers and their ilk vanished from the Earth you will probably be stuck with a lower standard of living anyway.
How much lower it gets depend on whether or not current generations change immediately or
continue denial until nature takes its course - and it will. The current lifestyle is unsustainable.
In 1830 there were 1 billion people - 1930 2 billion, 1960 3 billion, 2000 about 6 billion people
Back in 1760 no industrial revolution - no smokestack industries, no cars, no air pollution - limited environmental impact because the world population was about 750 million. Needed oil go - hunt down a whale. But that was then. What's been happening for the last 250 years?
The first step to solving a problem is admitting that it exists.
Denial might make you feel bretter - but it doesn't help.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:39 PM on 06/06/2008
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 159 fans permalink

Without it, there may be nothing to pass a long. Besides there is much money to be made in green products and technology. It will soon be a major contributor to a rise in living standards producing good jobs.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:14 AM on 06/09/2008
- falco I'm a Fan of falco 19 fans permalink

It's all a ruse to suck more money out of us and destroy the middle class. Which is the plan in case anyone isn't paying attention.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:22 PM on 06/06/2008
- HumeSkeptic I'm a Fan of HumeSkeptic 1625 fans permalink
photo

Oh! Yes. I'm paying attention. Now that you mention it, climate change is not going to affect the middle class at all. It is very selective. It affects only the rich and the very poor.

Also, you forgot to mention the "World Scientist Conspiracy" against the American Middle Class, especially that existing in Kentucky and West Virginia. I am sure Hannity and Limbaugh have more on that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:31 PM on 06/06/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 27 fans permalink

Talk about not paying attention.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:35 PM on 06/06/2008

Is "middle class" now defined as "the people who failed in school and never cared to catch up with the rest"? That's about how your definition sounds like.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:48 PM on 06/06/2008
- peterg76 I'm a Fan of peterg76 33 fans permalink
photo

In contrast to the existing plan which supports the middle class?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:15 PM on 06/06/2008
- noneIn2008 I'm a Fan of noneIn2008 27 fans permalink

Who will have their money confiscated to pay for this? We have all heard the line that corporations will. We know that just means the costs are passed on to the consumers, the people.
Read the fine print, it also notes, this reduction will do NOTHING on climate change.
Good deal. $45 trillion to do nothing.
If you buy this, I have some expensive swamp land in Louisiana that I can sell you for a few billion, again and again.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:17 PM on 06/06/2008
- HumeSkeptic I'm a Fan of HumeSkeptic 1625 fans permalink
photo

You shooting for a Nobel Prize in economics, Genius?

Oh! can you point me to the "fine print" that you mentioned? I'll go grab my magnifying glasses.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:34 PM on 06/06/2008

What did you buy that stupid swamp land for? Wasn't that a total waste of money? Nobody is going to buy that from you.

:-)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:49 PM on 06/06/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last » (6 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect