Why Is It That Morally Corrupt, Science Ignorant Climate Change Denying Lunatics Continue To Repeatedly Parrot Debunked Junk Science And Lie? What Makes Them No Better Than 9/11 or Fake Lunar Landing Conspiracy Kooks!

[Liquid Len]

Addressing global warming is too expensive to be worthwhile, according to
myoptic right wing fanatics and other so-called civil Libertarians.
Mostly gullible, uneducated radical ideologues who have never been inside
a university let alone studied the relevant sciences.

Typically, they would rather live a lie than face up to the truth. A
truth accepted by 800 multinational corporations and the bulk of the
world's insurance companies.

One key point this myth misses is that global climate change threatens the
very future of our species (and all others on the planet). It's hard to
imagine a dollar value worth more than the future of the human race. Even
disregarding this point, the costs of addressing global warming have been
greatly exaggerated by many, as has been proven time and time again:

* 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.

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

* Moreover, 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.

* An appropriate analogy is buying insurance. A valuable object is
usually worth insuring. While this may cost a significant amount of
money in the short-term, it ensures that if the object is damaged in
the future, it will not be a catastrophic result. The same is true of
global warming - a significant but affordable short-term investment
will help avoid potentially catastrophic damage in the long-run. And
in fact it also may even save us money.

* Still not convinced? Consider Denmark, which Forbes named "the best
country in the world for business" for 2 straight years. Denmark has
one of the strongest cap-and-trade commitments in the world — 20%
below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. And it has a requirement that 20
percent of its overall energy mix be renewable by the end of 2011. And
its efficiency measures are such that Energy Minister Connie Hedegaard
said last year, “In 2025, (Denmark’s) total energy consumption will
not have risen in 50 years.” And it's the best country for business
in the world.

* If that's not enough to convince you, consider the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) independent analysis of the Waxman-Markey carbon
cap and trade bill, which concluded that by 2020 it would cost 0.2% of
the average American household's after-tax income ($175 per year per
average family), not including the economic benefits and other
benefits of the reduction in GHG emissions and the associated slowing
of climate change.

* Similarly, the EPA concluded it would cost $80-111 per year per
family per year and consumer spending on utility bills would be
roughly 7% lower in 2020 as a result of the legislation.

* Then the EIA concluded the cost would be about $83 per average
family per year with just a 3-4% increase in energy bills.

* An analysis by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
estimated that the efficiency provisions alone could save businesses
and consumers $22 billion annually by 2020 - the same amount the CBO
concluded Waxman-Markey would cost. In short, according to these
analyses the carbon cap and trade bill will result in little to no net
cost to American consumers.

* The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) has strongly opposed
the cap and trade bill, and funded a study to try and prove it would
damage the US economy. The study incorporated some unrealistically
conservative and pessimistic assumptions, for example that American
companies will be unable to deploy clean energy and energy efficiency
technologies in a timely manner. Neverthless, the report concluded
that by 2030 if the cap and trade bill is enacted, the US GDP will
grow $9 trillion, which is 95% as much as they projected it would grow
if the bill fails. They also found that 20 million new jobs would be
created by 2030. In other words, even a study with unrealistic
assumptions which tried to prove the cap and trade system will cripple
the economy failed to support this conclusion.

Clearly the bottom line is that reducing greenhouse gas emissions just
doesn't cost that much. The same can't be said of failing to reduce
emissions.

[welldone]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:01:01 +0000 (UTC), Liquid Len
<leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
newsgroup line corrected.

note IP 94.75.214.39 ;

and, this geek always sets followups to

alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives,alt.idiots

---
--> "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" <--
--> Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net <--