Greenhouse Gas Calculator

Yale has produced a calculator where you enter what you consider the probabilities of different variables (for example, if you think it is a 75% chance that climate change will result in economic damage to U.S. if emissions United States are not reduced, you enter 0.75), and calculates the rate of U.S. economic growth over the next 20 years according to this scenario.

http://www.climate.yale.edu/seeforyourse ...

Try it. How to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases affect the U.S. economy?

My God! My variables were very pessimistic. For example: "How likely it is that national policies that make carbon more expensive fuels stimulate technological innovation and increasing energy efficiency or renewable energy alternative makes it less expensive?" I think exactly the opposite is true . Higher prices mean higher profits, and suppression of alternative energy. That's all we saw and what we'll see. We're still not using oil, if nothing else was true.

My expected result has been 2.989% growth compared to "business as usual" (do nothing) results in growth of 3.0%.

Almost all actions that would reduce emissions of greenhouse gases would not only provide more directly tangible environmental and social benefits, but would also serve to relocate and decentralize the U.S. (and worldwide) economy.

If you are looking to reduce fuel consumption and emissions, which makes more sense, a local farm, or a giant corporate farm in Chile?
This creates more jobs? That provides food better? What is more people who contributed to the knowledge of where their food comes from.
The same can be said of any industry, not just food, of course.

To cut greenhouse gases, you develop a lot of new industries that manufacture solar cells, wind turbines, electric cars, etc. This will employ many workers, engineers and managers. However, these new industries will create many new jobs and this can help the U.S. economy.

In addition, being a pioneer in this field of clean energy, you can get a lot of new markets abroad and sell your products to other countries and reduce the deficit that accumulates in the U.S. economy.

There is no way the U.S. economy can prosper by using fossil fuels.

More stupid than a climate model.

I expect that the Ivy League.

It moves our economy in a new direction. durability, cleaner energy and the transition to a more local rather than centralized (mega mall / Wal-Mart). Small businesses will boom and jobs will be created. The health of the nation will benefit more people begin to walk to their destination and at the same time we spend on health care will be reduced. We will save more energy and be able to redirect those resources to other areas.

Someone please show me how this is bad.

EDIT - Joecool, I'm not plagiarize your economic thoughts. I totally agree with you, but I do not see what you have written that I was finished ..

Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, even if it is the lowest of all greenhouse gas emissions, have costs that are difficult to plug into a calculator. Obviously we will move to greater energy efficiency, which has always been the trend. The problem is that even if our devices are more energy efficient, we have many more of them than we had.

In 1950, there was a television in black and white households, usually with a small screen. He ate a lot of energy. TVs today are much more efficient electronics in the solid state, but there are two or more in each household and they consume energy even when they are.