I have noticed that some folks have been throwing around numbers about how much "fixing" global warming will cost. There seems to be little debate on this issue- that these numbers are foregone conclusions. In fact, with all the debate on global warming, attempting to discredit scientists that say it is the product of human design is on a near daily basis, while there seems to be little to no reliable data on how much "fixing" it would cost. I am using the word "fixing" to mean all the remedies being bandied about as needing to change in order to stop emmiting so much polluntants (greenhouse gasses and other chemicals that might make the global enviroment worse, from a human point of view)

After a google search, I came up with this:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p08s02-comv.html

The gist is that NOT fixing it will cost the US MUCH more than "fixing" Global warming.

1) Do you think the numbers that global warming "deny-ers" are accurate, such as the 280billion dollars per year that Ted threw out there here: http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...5499&st=200 or 400 billion to comply with the Kyoto protocols?

2) Is this just doom and gloom comments by affected industries that probably need to go the way of the whale oil industry?

3) Do you have some numbers that can show it will be much more expensive to NOT deal with the "fixes"?

1.) In our research for a documentary at work [which was produced in Summer of 2,006 and has since been available for viewing and scrutiny], we heard rumors of a report sponsored by the British Government to be called The Stern Report. The findings were quite interesting, in that it found that the cost would be nine trillion dollars and it remains endorsed by the British government, to the best of my knowledge. So, from where I'm sitting, accurate to a point.

2.) I know it's been thrown around a lot lately, but the oil industry has spent more money this year defending tort lawsuits than researching alternative fuels. They don't seem too invested in aiding the fight against Global Warming, so it doesn't seem overly far-fetched to assume they would produce figures that would paint the cost of that fight too high.

3.) See above.

Hey weather you believe the 9 trillion from the British government, My 400 billion or some other number the bottom line is spending even 1 dollar to do nothing is worthless imo. And we all know that without China and India on board – and they are NOT – it will never happen.
So lets go with the Bush idea which is we ALL get together (including India and China) and agree on how to reduce CO2.
Failing this – don’t bother.

I hear you on getting everyone on board with this- however, IIRC, we are still the biggest polluter by way of our consumerism on the planet- a fraction of the world's population using up 25% of the entire world's resources- we still are the main culprits in all of this- if you have travelled much- you can see how much we waste compared to any other society on the planet.

Also- I suspect that the "it doesn't do any good anyway" crowd has some ulterior motives, like, oh, oil companies and thier ilk?