Posted on 12/10/2009 11:18:32 AM PST by staffjam
An interesting look at the Economic Impact Global Warming has.
The costs of Global Warming are tremendous, estimates of course vary but most figures put out are in the trillions. So what does this mean for you and how are you directly affected by these costs?
In 2007, scientists at the Carnegie Institution measured, over the past 20 years, the annual yields of the worlds six largest crops (which account for 55% of non-meat calories consumed by humans and 70% of total animal feed)and found that increasingly warmer temperatures led to lower crop yields. Those lower crop yields amounted to a net economic loss of $5 billion a year.
Thats good information, but there was one problem with the Carnegie Institutions study, however: It looked backward. But by the time the Carnegie Institutions study was released, another report had begun to gain notoriety: The Stern Review. In this 2006 report, Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, looked forward. His prediction: Climate change will have such a serious impact on economic growth that 1% of global gross domestic product (GDP) will be required to mitigate its effects. Thats a lot of money, given that GDP was almost $70 trillion in 2008, according to the World Bank. The full article is at: Global Warming
(Excerpt) Read more at oilprice.com ...
Good news.
Since sunspots seem to be disappearing, the planet will be cooling, which will lead to higher crop yields, which will in turn lead to an economic gain of billion of dollars a year.
Its likely to do the opposite actually. Colder weather = lower yields on the whole.
The warmer=lower yields analysis is badly off I think.
Historically, whenever the planet warms, food harvest increase with the longer growing seasons.
I welcome global warming.
I would hope that others have done the same with other crops, and for both warmer and colder varieties.
http://www.historylink101.com/lessons/farm-city/yeild.htm
Interesting that crop yields have actually doubled or trippled around the world between 1961 and 2000. Raw data are useful things.
We would see a 10 to 12 percent decrease in grain crop yields if we managed to cut the atmospheric CO2 back to 1850 levels.
Conifer growth would be stunted by 30%.
A warmer planet is a wetter planet. And I would think places like Canada and Russia would get greater wheat production.
Well, if it would cause all those problems,
it sure is a good thing it isn’t happening, isn’t it?
On the other hand, what would the “economic impact” of the “global warming SOLUTIONS” be?
Quite a few energy pundits believe global warming is just what we need to focus on new energy solutions. Is it manmade/natural who knows - but we must figure out the next step!
I don’t buy that these leftists want alternative energy - they just want NO CONSUMPTION on our part.
The economic impact of the demagoguery advocating global warming as a consequence of economic activity is, do-nothings like the demagogue Al Gore make millions doing nothing, while using more energy and producing more pollution than the rest of us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.