The EPA estimates that complying with S.2191, the Lieberman-Warner Act of 2008 would cost a lot. By 2050 it would reduce US GDP by $2,856,000,000,000, almost $2.9 trillion annually by 2050. And the result would be a net reduction of just over 25 ppm of CO2, by 2095. That includes increasing nuclear power generation by 150% by 2050, something that may not occur.
Since China has indicated they won%26#039;t sign a treaty with such large reductions, whatever is left of our manufacturing base will find it much more attractive to relocate rather than to take costly action to meet the mandates in this bill. How many jobs would that cost? A 25 ppm reduction is tiny compared to the increases from China and other countries so would the cost in terms of tax dollars, economic and energy reductions and lost jobs be worth it?
Additional Details
5 months ago
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloa...http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloa...
http://junkscience.com/mar08/EPA_LW.html
5 months ago
Ken: I suppose if sea levels rise high enough we could build dikes or find other solutions on the Holland model. Some have always claimed the IPCC report was conservative, including Al Gore who was off by a factor of about 20 as I recall.Nickel: Adjust the 25 ppm to include other countries if you wish but this report was only about US targets and costs. This is a brand-new EPA report so I don%26#039;t know what you disagree with.
Bob: no one knows what the costs of not doing anything will be, the last time it got warmer the human race did very well. What pressure can anyone exert on China to get them to sign a treaty that they consider to be against their interests?
Thor: the report, if you%26#039;d read it, clearly takes into account sequestration methods not yet available, 150% growth in nuclear power which is unlikely, and other innovations. I don%26#039;t think you can credit environmentalists for the fact that higher gas prices have led to reduced sales of gas hogs, that%26#039;s called the free market.
China is negotiating, and they%26#039;ll be tough. But they%26#039;ll come around. It%26#039;s dawned on them that causing a worldwide depression with global warming will not be good for business. 20% 1 Vote
Source: several articles at www.pointcarbon.com and www.co2-handel.de
----------------------------------
The number of 25ppm you state is misleading as it is the contribution of the US. The EU has already indicated that it will take a stronger committment if the US agrees on mandatory caps too. Other D5 (largest 5 developing countries) are also opened to the idea to take a strong comittment if the US does.
The EPA analysis states that climate change with a US participation can be limited to 2°C
------------------------------------
The REAL REASON FOR HEAVY INDUSTRY JOBS BEING LOST (please note that the US lost plenty without signing the Kyoto Protocol and instead did not win high-tech environemtal jobs
- the demand for industrial and construction material is in China (50% of the cement worldwide, 35% of the steel, etc..) How many new bridges does the US build per year compared to China?
- the US steel industry does not need to produce primary steel still plenty of scrap is available to be recycled
- the level of automation of US is higher and the productivity higher requiring less employees
- the improved engineering of the last 20 years largely cut the need for heavy industry products (e.g. a new supermarket structure is build with only 50% the steel you would have needed 20 years ago... blame engineers) Their analysis is not worth reading since I just read a report stating that the emission reductions in US buildings are much higher and much cheaper than what they estimated.
PAGE 58: END USER PRICE PER BARREL OF OIL: $81...
I have really SERIOUS DOUBTS ABOUT THIS.... 20% 1 Vote
You can spend your money on this fool%26#039;s errand, but you will have a hard time spending a penny of mine if I have anything to say about it! 0% 0 Votes