Comments on: What is the cost of staving off climate change? Tracking U.S. politics Wed, 16 Nov 2016 03:39:51 +0000 hourly 1 By: JCon Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:46:14 +0000 To those who don’t want the government running alternative power and would rather leave it to private industry, I would only remind you of what a great job private industry has done getting us into this mess: private auto and oil companies pushed gas guzzling cars on the public and helped kill public transportation, thus worsening the problem. In other areas, private industry has been equally “successful”: private banks, private mortgage companies, private health insurance companies, provate drug companies–they have all been a disaster for this country, and now some of you want private companies to fix global warming? How many times does a plan have to fail before the dumbest among us finally see the light–and why do we have to wait for them to see it before we make needed changes?

By: Anubis Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:13:21 +0000 Richard, is it possible someone could publish an article about the cost of doing nothing to mitigate climate change and global warming? I know if my engine leaks coolant and I do nothing because of the cost, eventually the leak will get worse and almost certainly overheat and destroy the engine if I continue to drive. Fixing the leak is far less expensive than rebuilding or replacing an engine.

As climate change progresses, glaciers will disappear. Drought will destroy farmland in some regions and flooding in others. Sea levels will rise displacing hundreds of billions of people on all continents. Storms will become more frequent and severe.

It would appear at first glance the cost of doing nothing would be for many intolerable and catastrophic. The cost of mitigating climate change is what it is. The longer we wait to address this issue, the more it will cost and most likely not yield the results we will need.

By: Dan Sun, 05 Apr 2009 13:04:37 +0000 I challenge everyone to begin reading the information at for a balanced perspective and then decide for yourself…

By: TC Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:49:44 +0000 Few people dispute fostering sound environmental practices. However, the debate (and the debate is not over) should not be about climate change or global warming or anything with a dire “the sky is falling” mentality is nonsense and a total scam. We are not on the edge of extinction. So stop with the scare tactics.

As someone stated earlier, the earth has been through this before and it survived and it was not caused by humans. No matter what we do, it will not save the earth.

There is also no argument about renewable energy (even though it won’t save our planet, just our natural resources). I just don’t want the government to run it. It should be left up to entrepreneurs and private enterprise because if any group is going to do it right, it is the private sector (yes, it is a debate, but not everyone is for big government).

In my opinion, a bigger problem is the government spending us into oblivion, not global warming or climate change. Time will prove this to be true.

SF. It doesn’t matter at what rate climate change occurs. It means nothing when compared to the bigger picture, that climate change has occurred since the beginning of time and will take place long after we are gone.

Also, you might believe any scientist that agrees with your point of view. However, I agree with the scientists that support my point of view. So no, the debate is not over and will never be over. You should read “Environmental Overkill” and “Trashing the Planet” both written by Dixie Lee Ray (former governor of Washington. She also worked as a scientist in the Environment Protection Agency before turning to politician.

Eric. I happen to support your point of view. I just don’t want the government to control it. They don’t have a very good track record running things. Also, I live in a state with nuclear power, it isn’t so bad and I do support nuclear power (though I am not passionate about it…just support it). Lastly, I am going to continue to criticize Al Gore because I think he is a hypocrite and a demagogue who does not practice what he preaches. But my criticism has nothing to do with sound environmental policies, just Al Gore.

By: Eric H Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:19:30 +0000 One more thing….We do not have enough oil underground in the US to meet our needs.
We would have to become the worlds leading producer of oil to cover what we currently use. So why should we mess up a place like ANWAR when we will never be able to get enough out of it to meet our needs?

By: Eric H Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:12:56 +0000 i’ve said before and I’ll say it again, whether you believe that the planet is warming or not there are plenty of good reasons for getting off fossil fuels.

First, they are going to run out. No question no debate, oil and coal are finite resources. We are going to have to deal with this someday so why not now?

Second, does anyone remember the term “acid rain”? You know, when pollutants are brought back to earth in rainwater. There are advisories in Maine about eating fresh water fish due to mercury and other lovely things that are caused by burning coal and from factory emissions in the mid-west. Before anyone says anything, there is no such thing as “clean coal”. Also, Goggle images of coal mine runoff in states like W. Virginia. It has ruined so many streams and rivers to the point that even coal miners are against strip mining and other mining methods.

Third, nuclear energy is expensive and time consuming to start up. It takes ten years just to get through the permitting. If you are in favor of nuclear energy then I suggest that you volunteer to store some waste in a bunker in your back yard because I don’t want it near me.

Fourth, how long are we going to send billions a year to the Saudis for their oil? Has every one forgotten that fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi? Has everyone forgotten that Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi who’s family (and Osama) made some of their fortune rebuilding Kuwait after Bush 41’s war? Let me say that again, some of the US tax payer money that helped rebuild Kuwait went to the Bin Laden construction company that won no-bid contracts to help with rebuilding. Now this is where it gets good, some of the Bin Laden fortune was given to Osama and that was used to plan and execute the attacks on 9/11. WE PAYED FOR IT WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS !! Irony is cruel sometimes huh?

Fifth, despite the governments slow start to the economic think of the jobs that could be created if started building wind turbines here instead of buying them from Denmark. There are plenty of skilled hard working people in my state being laid off from mill jobs who could be retrained and plenty of mills that could be retooled to produce turbines and solar panels. Not to mention all those auto workers and factories that are idle.

I could go on but lately these blogs bore me. So debate all you want about climate change, bad mouth Al Gore all you want but remember we are wasting time and right now time is about all this country has.

By: sf Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:05:24 +0000 No tc, what he is clearly stating is that what formerly took tens of thousands of years is now happening at an exponentially faster rate, thanks to the technologies of our species.

With the absolutely overwhelming scientific evidence out there about this issue, not to mention the consequences of inaction, I simply don’t understand what the counter-argument is.

Why would anyone be against helping the planet?? But then, many of these people arguing against it also believe that woman was developed from a man’s rib, a man hung out inside a whale, and Noah was hundreds of years old. That’s clearly more plausible.

By: TC Thu, 02 Apr 2009 23:22:28 +0000 Anubis. So what I am hearing from you is that global warming is not caused by humans. It will occur whether we do anything about it or not.

So, the bottom line is we can’t control climate change/global warming. Spending money to save our planet will not stop our destruction.

Good, we need to save our money for important things that we can control.

By: Anubis Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:50:57 +0000 For all the unbelievers of anthropogenic climate change, I suggest you read up on the Permian extinction and the Eocene Epoch. You have time to write, you have time to read. One was the greatest mass extinction on the planet due to global warming 200 million years ago. The other a much less destructive one that occurred about 34 million years ago. Subsequent to the less destructive event, no large mammals survived at all. Glacial ice disappeared and the fresh water essential for life that these glaciers provided. More importantly was the time scale which these events unfolded. As with all other climate warming events they unfolded over tens of thousands of years. The current warming event is unfolding at an exponentially faster rate. But don’t believe me, start with Wikipedia and learn about these events and while you at it,the contributions of Roger Revelle and Charles Keeling. Repentance I’m afraid will do nothing for posterity.

By: keith anderson Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:11:42 +0000 it’s amazing that millions of years ago’ an ice age killed nearly everthing on this planet couldn’t “destroy” earth,but a couple billion people gonna get my hard hat on because im convinced that the next prediction will be “the sky is falling”