Experts estimate that it will cost upwards of $200 billion just to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. That's just one city, and it will all be paid for by Americans. Makes the $600 million price tag for global warming mitigation, which will be split among many countries and will benefit the whole world, seem pretty darn reasonable...
Where do you get that estimate? This site puts the costs at $150 billion per year for 45 years, or nearly seven trillion dollars. This article puts the total global costs at $18 trillion.
The bottom line, though, is no one really knows how much it will cost -- which makes many people want to go slow.
I completely agree. And as a "leader" in our global community the United States should lead the way, both as an example to other nations through our policies and actions, and in financial support, especially given how much more energy we consume and waste we produce when compared to the rest of the world. Sadly, we don't do any of these things, and frankly I find that to be an embarrassment. We want to be respected by other countries yet our behavior in this area as a country is not worthy of much respect.
Not if big polluters like China and India are exempt, as they are from parts of Kyoto.
The game is only fun (and functional) if all the kids play! (US, China, India, etc.)
what is the kyoto accord? `how does it impact the USA?
Here's an interesting tidbit: according to this article in the Guardian newspaper of London, greehouse gas emissions in Britain, which has signed the Kyoto treaty, have gone up in the last two years, while emissions in the US, which has not signed, have gone down. Make of that what you will.
The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty on greenhouse gasses. It does not affect the United States because, in 1997, the Senate voted 96-0 to not accept any treaty which did not cover developing countries as well as industrialized nations. Neither President Clinton nor President Bush have ever submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification.
Shame on President Bush and on the Congress for not demanding that he sign the Protocol. We should all be ashamed of them.
Given that it's costing billions of dollars, and may not have any measurable effect, not signing actually seems like the prudent thing to do.
Yes, I think it can if the U.S. would agree to it and try to change because it will help in the long run.
There are much better ways to produce efficient societies. See the U.S., Australia, Japan, China environmental agreement of Summer, '05.
Saving the environment is worth all the money in the world.
Here's an editorial from the Wall Street Journal arguing that because the Kyoto treaty focued on the problem, rather than the solution, it was doomed to failure, and has indeed failed. Of course, many people have other opinions. Another round of climate talks was recently concluded in Montreal.
Well, will it work?
There's no point in paying for something if you don't even know if it will work yet.
really, first of all there is no proof at all that global warming caused hurricane Katrina in the first place. anyway, don't we all complain that it is to cold? so therefor, global warming would be positive. There is no scientific proof that global warming exists anyway. So about the Kyoto treaty? Why bother?
Global warming is real enough -- the Earth's temperature definitely increased from 1980 to 1998, and has not come down appreciably since. Why that happened, and what effect it will have, is a mater open to debate.
According to this story, China, which is not covered by the Kyoto treaty, is now the top producer of carbon pollution in the world.
I agree that we should try and stop global warming. Even if it takes a while, it is worth it.
hate the fact that Global Warming is really happening. I hate what its doing to the animals, especially the Polar Bears. Iwish it would stop
Email
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Science Buzz and all related activities
Add a new comment