$45 trillion needed to combat warming

[SUBMAN1]

Uhh... Excuse me? Isn't this a bit rediculous? :D :rotfl: :o

I Guess the IEA says it best here:

"This development is clearly not sustainable," said Dolf Gielen, an IEA energy analyst and leader for the project.

Gielen said most of the $45 trillion forecast investment — about $27 trillion — would be borne by developing countries, which will be responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
-S

PS. ...and that's just the down payment!

PPS. DT pointed this out - Worse still, the report only covers emissions from energy production -- the much larger amount arising from agriculture, transportation, land-use changes, and other factors weren't included.

[STEED]

Better off giving me the $45 trillion and I will show you how to have a good time. :D :lol:

And for free I will tell you global warming is bunk.

[SUBMAN1]

Better off giving me the $45 trillion and I will show you how to have a good time. :D :lol:

And for free I will tell you global warming is bunk.Even worse than you know. NASA has been holding out on us I found out. Not because they want to, but because of $$$. Check this:

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"

New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible

Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was....I love the 'or was' part! Follow up here:

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wron g/article10973.htm



This is the part I was refering to above:

NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.
A sad time for science.

-S

[Skybird]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=137740&page=2

The International Energy Agency recently calculated what an energy revolution would cost, coming up with the figure of $45,000 billion by 2050. For many, climate protection may not be a sufficient argument to justify investments on this scale -- but perhaps the high oil price is." (Financial Times germany)[/quote]


"But every dollar by which the inflated oil price rises has its good side -- it accelerates the unavoidable adjustments. It is therefore good that the energy ministers of the G-8 are concentrating on putting their own house in order. The time for excuses is past. Oil consumers must use the pain of high oil prices to bring about a revolution in energy policies." (Handelsblatt)


"The G-8 states want to learn from each other how they can get by with less energy. Given the recent developments, that doesn't sound like very much. But it is probably the smartest thing that those countries could do. Anything else would fail."
"The solution … can't be put off any longer. The industrialized states will need to make themselves independent from the very resources that fueled their industrialization. They will need to build better houses and heat them with less fuel. They will need to develop better cars which need less gasoline. If that is the result of the record prices, and if the world can manage to go down this road without a colossal recession, then this latest development will even have had a good side." (Süddeutsche Zeitung)

"Hope lies in abstinence. Germany has already succeeded in uncoupling, to a relatively large degree, its economic performance from energy prices. Now the focus has to be on further increasing this degree of independence from oil through increases in efficiency and energy saving measures. (Die Welt)


"Those who are calling for natural gas prices to be uncoupled from oil prices are practicing pure populism. … The two prices are simply dependent on each other, because when oil prices are high then consumers increasingly switch to natural gas, which then becomes expensive due to the extra demand. Just as populist are calls for a reduction in taxes on oil or other energy taxes, to balance out the increases in prices.
"All these measures do not solve the problem, namely that fossil fuels are becoming scarce. In this situation, only one thing can help -- lowering consumption. The market economies in which we live have a simple instrument to bring that about, namely higher prices."(Die Tageszeitung)

Can't argue here.

[AVGWarhawk]

Give me 45 trillion and I will fight Al Gore...any more hot air from him and we are in real trouble.

[AVGWarhawk]

In your face Al Gore....money making scumbag:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

[SUBMAN1]

In your face Al Gore....money making scumbag:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.htmlGood article.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

This speech is also good:

http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm

-S