"The fact is unchecked climate change will impose heavy costs on millennials and subsequent generations, both directly in the form of reduced incomes and wealth, and indirectly through likely higher tax bills as extreme weather, rising sea levels, drought, heat-related health problems, and many other climate change-related problems take their toll on our society."

The impacts from climate costs alone, the report finds, are "comparable to Great Depression-era losses." The study employs a model developed by researchers from Stanford University and University of California at Berkeley that measures the effects of rising temperatures on long-term economic growth and national productivity drawing on 50 years of data from 166 countries.

The "no climate action" scenario found that by 2100 global per capita GDP will shrink by 23 percent relative to a scenario without climate change. The U.S. is estimated to take a 5 percent hit by 2050 that jumps to 36 percent by 2100 should no climate action occur.

This adds up to a loss of nearly $8.8 trillion in lifetime income for millennials and tens of trillions for their children.

"For the millennial generation, today's status quo on climate and inequality is not only unjust but it is also unsustainable."

skepticalscience.com

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

That's a new scare theme. Got to give them an A for creativity.

Wonder where these same types are when the discourse gets to the $9 trillion that the PiC has heaped upon Millenials. Bet they say that doesn't matter.

And that raises another point. I thought spending was the best thing we could do for the economy (after, that is, Bush left office - it was different under Bush). Under prog economics, all those lucky bastards will all be rich.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

Congress spends money, not the President.

But this is about climate, not tax breaks for the rich that create debt.

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

These cultists keep trying and trying, but nothing works. No one beyond the small band of cultists gives a damn about this.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/Most-Important-Problem.aspx

These people remind me of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, i.e., nuts.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

Parts of Miami are already underwater and it has cost hundreds of millions to rectify the issue - for now.

I'd say the above cost predictions are low.



-------------------------
I was right.

This is where the tried and true Tea Partiers show how dope they are.

My question is What Can Be Done? Answer, not much ... That is the cold hard truth. Too many people, and all want the convenience of transportation. I suppose if we all drove ultralight vehicles, perhaps its achievable, but, only to some degree. It will take a plague of some sort to wipe 90% of the worlds population before our impact decreases significantly.

That's probably what will happen.
Overcrowding and warmer temps is increasing the risk.

Not at all true.
The worst is avoidable.

Solar Power
Electric cars
California

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

It is true. If we are experiencing this phenomenon, not a damn thing we can do about it. The cultists themselves have many times established a deadline, beyond which we could not recover. We have passed several of those deadlines. You wouldn't be anti-science and deny that, would you?

We'd be throwing away money for no reason, money we would be putting to better uses in other areas.

Four years ago -

http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Warming-nears-point-of-no-return-scientists-say-3615965.php

And remember, the PiC reached a "deal" with China whereby China agreed to reach its peak of green house gases emissions by 2030. And China is the world's biggest producer or green house gases.

 

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

Don't you even read past the headlines?
The very first line in your link:

The Earth is reaching a "tipping point" in climate change that will lead to increasingly rapid and irreversible destruction of the global environment unless its forces are controlled by concerted international action, an international group of scientists warns.

The President's groundbreaking deal with China is just the sort of concerted international action that is needed.

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

Fine. When is the point of no return then?

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

for 2 degrees C, we are probably already past it.
for 4-6, we probably have only a decade or 2 to reverse things.

My prediction is that we will not.
Not for technical or economic reasons, but political ones
The Fossil fuel industry that needs that fuel burned for profits will continue to confuse people with lies, craven politicians will echo those lies, we will change very slowly.

Fusion will start coming on line around 2040, but only after we've already baked in around 4 degrees of temp rise
Generations of our descendants will pay for our few decades of inaction.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm...R5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf



-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

With as much ethanol that is produced, and it is a lot, it is still only a fraction of the current fuel being used. Thats our best bet. Solar - nope - not nearly enough energy. Wind - nope. Nuclear combined with electric vehicles - yes, a possibility, but ... a long way from reality. It would take a very long time to build all the nuclear plants needed, and they can have serious environmental impacts themselves. More motorcycles combined with 100% ethanol - yes. Inherent danger in riding though. Perhaps an ultralight and ultrasafe motorcycle would get us there.

Solar is a huge part of the answer
lots of energy there
Almost any home gets enough sun to provide all of its power
Elon is working out the storage problem

ethanol is almost a net loser as it's done now

fusion will be the answer, in 2 or 3 decades

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

Net loser from a cost perspective, but, ... maybe we need to be paying MORE for fuel if we want it to be carbon neutral. We've gotten addicted to cheap fuel, so cost is only one factor.

There is a bunch of solar stuff in the works that will really change the picture. Things like panels that actually work for more than five hours a day.

50 years from now, they'll look at fossil fuels like we look at whale oil.



-------------------------
I was right.

I meant net loser from a carbon perspective, too much carbon gets released in their making for them to be much of the answer for climate chang.


-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

And another Lib solution;

On the contrary, columnist Jeff Jacoby writes, "The notion that too many people are having kids, and that 'overpopulation' spells doom for life on Earth, has been an article of faith among environmental extremists since at least the 1960s." Jacoby quotes former Sierra Club executive director David Brower, who "insisted decades ago that childbearing should be 'a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.'" That view is also held by John Holdren, an Obama administration adviser who "was writing in the 1970s about the catastrophe that would result if governments didn't turn to forcible sterilization, compulsory abortion, or anti-fertility drugs in the water supply to shrink the population," Jacoby explains. "Population misanthropes were freaking out about the disasters sure to come from making too many babies as far back as ancient Greece. But though babies keep being made ... the disaster never comes." The reason is simple: "That is because babies are more than carbon footprints. They grow up not merely to consume, but to produce."

-------------------------
Romans 8;18-32 John 3;16-18

Over population is a big issue, especially when half of the people in the US have zero concern about climate change and it's ramifications.

If we keep going the way we are going, it will end poorly for a serious chunk of the global population.

-------------------------
I was right.