英语论文网

lic policy propose more stringent standards on CO2 emissions. The Environmental Advocates of New York say the following on their webpage, “While the United States refuses to participate in international initiatives to address global warming, like the Kyoto Protocol on climate change that took effect February 16, New York is one of nine northeast states that are working together to place limits on the emissions of C02 from power plants”. As earlier discussed, reducing CO2 may have a very minor impact, if any at all, on the warming on the globe, thus suggesting that money allocated towards reducing CO2 emissions is an inefficient use of resources. Ultimately, environmental action must be balanced with economic costs and, in this predicament, there is no cost effective way to stop global warming.

 

Efforts to reduce CO2 emissions are largely a waste of time, energy and money. Pete Altman, who studies global warming issues at the National Environmental Trust, states “global warming could cost the work economy up to 1 to 5 percent of its total economic output per year, or $500 billion to $3 trillion, using 2006 figures” (Hargreaves, 2007). Unfortunately for the economy, people continue to irrationally focus on ways to reduce CO2. A recent report from a UK economist states that the financial cost of attempting to prevent CO2-produced global warming could reduce the word's economic growth by 20% and would cost around 9 trillion dollars (Clark, 2006). Thomas Schelling, a renowned economist and expert on this issue of global warming, stated in the American Economic Review that “proposals to hold emissions of carbon dioxide constant (with a linear increase of concentration in perpetuity) or to reduce emissions by 50 percent below what they would otherwise be, beginning perhaps in 2010, are expected to cost in the hundreds of billions in perpetuity” (Schelling, 1992). Obviously the costs to reduce C02 would be justified if C02 was the primary driver of global warming, but as previously discussed, there is no current need for climate policy that restricts C02 emissions because C02 is not causing the global warming the earth is experiencing.

 

Of course discussing the economics of this issue is not beneficial if the majority of the planet's inhabitants die from increased heat temperatures, which is a prominent argument from the opposing side. Fortunately, this is not a result of increased temperatures. According to Bjorn Lomberg, author of Cool It, the direct impact of climate change will not cause massive disruptions or huge death tolls. Lomberg states, “the direct impact of climate change in 2050 will mean fewer dead, and not by a small amount. In total, about 1.4 million people will be saved each year, due to more than 1.7 million fewer deaths from cardiovascular diseases and 365,000 more deaths from respiratory disorders. Even China and India will see more than 720,000 saved each year, with deaths avoided outweighing extra deaths nine to one” (Lomberg, 38, 2007). It is important to realize that global warming has been based on dramatic stories that use scare tactics as their primary appeal. A more thorough analysis reveals that the net benefits of global warming exceed the net costs.

沪ICP备10026080号-1

   Europe （24-hours）
   EN：18321957152
   china （24-hours）
   CN：18321957152

    全天候24小时在线客服
      QQ:949925041