The argument is often put forth by climate contrarians that we cannot afford to do anything about climate change. Recent legislation to even begin addressing greenhouse gas emissions died last year in the U.S. Senate, because the PR campaigns of the fossil industries (oil, coal, natural gas) convinced the public that such legislation would mean higher energy taxes. What is always missing from this equation, however, is the costs of doing nothing about climate change.
Last May, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences noted that we are already beginning to see the impacts of climate change across the country, and since then, there have been massive flooding across the globe. Among the countries hit by mega -floods are Pakistan, China, Australia, the Philippines, Brazil, and Sri Lanka. Climate change is though by scientists to contribute to the shifts in La Nina and El Nino patterns in the Pacific Ocean, thought to have affected these mega-floods directly.
So, what do you suppose the costs of these floods might be?
Reuters reports major losses to labor and industry for the Australian floods alone. These include coal miners, Â mining contractors, port/rail operators, agriculture, retail, insurers, tourism, coal seam gas. The global re-insurer, Swiss Re, has long published concerns re: the costs of climate change, and addresses the Australian floods, among other "secondary perils". Barclays estimates insured losses @ $6Billion, and total losses around $20Billion. This is for the Australian floods alone.
While you might be wise to begin seriously considering flood insurance, you might also wonder why we (Americans) are such a reactive, rather than a proactive society.
I was not especially enthusiastic about "Cap-N-Trade" legislation that died in the Senate last year. "Cap-N-Dividend" and Feebates are much better plans.
But to be paralyzed by the PR campaigns of fossil fuel industries, which spin reductions in greenhouse gas emissions as a "tax", is to invite much greater financial losses in the future. And if you haven't recently been in Australia, be thankful!!!
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 24
You're right. We must act quickly.
Is there a moral high ground in climate science? Or is it all just an economic game?
However, floods are an economic game. Population is an economic game.
I'm not sure how populations and floods are economic games - except in this abstracted sense.
Who’s Sleeping Now?
That is a common mistake. We look at what is seen, and ignore what isn't seen. We look at jobs stimulus created, and ignore the jobs it destroyed. We look at the higher wages some get from minimum wage, and ignore those that are unemployed because of it. We look at the cost of stopping pollution but not the costs of pollution. When will we ever learn.
As far as pollution you nailed the reason of the denying: corporations are scared about the cost to THEM, however they refuse to take into account the general cost as far as health, evironment and pollution are concerned.
Such issued pollution, per example, has more or less double the cost of the treatment of drinkable water in the last 20 years but you pay it, not the corporations.
You point out the way statistics are done. OK. In many cases you are right: GDP considers as a positive figure jailed people expenses, hospital expenses, illnesses expenses and even the money received by prostitutes (LOL).
But when you want to deal with pollution, how come do you refuse to take into account the cost of it as not only a GDP figure but, as well, as providing jobs, lowering ilnesses, etc.?
IMO you cant make any reproach this way and refuse to apply it to yourself.
I'm not sure where I refused. I don't believe I said anything about that.