Will global warming mitigation result in a net economic gain?

Will global warming mitigation result in a net economic gain?
Obviously, there will be a strong positive environmental impact to moving towards low carbon energy and improving land use. Will such actions also be a net economic gain over the long haul?
2 days ago
Additional Details
A non-partisan study by the DoE last year analyzed the Lieberman-Warner Act. On the surface, there is a slight total economic cost of 0.1% to 0.8% of GDP over 20 years.

"http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerp...

However, such an analysis doesn't take into account the GDP saved from helping to mitigate the worst effects of global warming - a benefit seen especially in the 2nd half of the century, creating a cleaner environment, the social benefits of green industries, and the economic benefits of less dependency on foreign sources of fossil fuels.

http://72ba.com/
2 days ago

Braz,

Actually, the biggest supporter of corn ethanol was George W. Bush. He's a bit of an alarmist, I suppose, with regards to other issues. Most scientists and environmentalists see corn ethanol as a poor solution.
2 days ago

Obviously, scientists do not believe global warming will be beneficial. The net costs will be severe.

http://www.72ba.com


That depends what you compare it to. If you're comparing the economic impacts of global warming mitigation vs. a scenario with no mitigation and no global warming effects, the net result will be an economic loss. But this is not a realistic scenario.

If you're comparing it to a realistic scenario where there is no mitigation and we do experience the effects of global warming and climate change, the result is a huge net economic gain.

The damage from unabated climate change might eventually cost the global economy 5-20% of GDP each year, every year, according to a 2006 British government report.

In comparison, one recent plan to address global warming would just cost less than 3% of the global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030 to meet its lowest targets — or 0.12% annually. The IPCC suggests similar annual mitigation costs of 0.2-3.5% of current world GDP. That compares favorably to global economic growth that every year has averaged almost 3% since 2000.

In fact, Florida and California have recently performed studies regarding the economic costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Florida concluded that a 50% cut in the state's greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2025 would save the state $28 billion. California similarly concluded the economic savings from its plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions would outweight the costs.


It isn't obvious at all that it will be positive for the environment. To change the temperature less than a tenth of a degree, the alarmists would have us plant millions of extra acres of corn. Thousands of square miles of rain forest will be destroyed planting palm oil tree. People will cut down any sort of tree for fuel to burn in their houses which will cause millions to die. There is nothing good about the global warming movement to the environment. It is highly destructive to both the prosperity of man and the natural environment. The degree of extra warming would be beneficial. It seems highly unlikely at this point that you would get even that so I wouldn't bet the farm on any harm ever coming from global warming. Mitigation is just a waste of time and resources.

If Obama were truly against reliance on fossil fuels, he wouldn't be reneging on oil and gas leases, he wouldn't be rescinding approvals of coal-fired power plants, and he'd open up coastal drilling.