Tackling greenhouse gases looks to be affordable
International report sets out costs of bringing down global emissions.
Bringing greenhouse gas emissions under control looks to be both achievable and affordable, on the basis of the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Comments
I'm wondering if someone's math is off. I don't think you can just divide 3% of by ~23 years to get 0.12%/year. Although the cost incurred is divided among the years, the total it's out of is also divided.
I could be confused about what is meant by "global economic productivity" in this context, though.
Posted by: RM | May 4, 2007 03:46 PM
Indeed, you can't just simply divide the number because each year you have to count the percentage on the previous result.
For example, in the case of GDP growht, if one year you have a GDP of 100 and a 3% GDP annual growth, you will have 103 the next year. It the next year you have the same annual growth, the result is not 106, but 1.03*103=106.09. The same happens here.
In the case you are asking about, so as not to make the calculation 23 times, you can do the following: 1.0012^23-1 and you will get something close to 3%, around 2.8%.
Posted by: Nicolas Pekari | May 6, 2007 11:23 AM
Antipoetic global warming is politically correct and critics are persecuted as heretics. The infamous UN body, the IPCC, produce a wealth of junk science and IPCC has become a guilt driven contemporary version of the medieval Christian Inquisition. Numerous findings suggest that natural causes govern the ever changing climate but the IPCC consistently tries to ignore and silence critique expressed by a growing number of serious scientists who are witnessing the decay of science as we speak. Global warming may perhaps be political correct by it is scientifically as wrong as cold fusion.
Here are three commonly known facts that each falsifies the theory that Global Warming is caused by CO2:
1. CO2 and global temperature is correlated yes, but the change in CO2 is actually lacking BEHIND the change in temperature by approximately 800 years! The huge oceans of earth are the biggest reservoir of CO2. Heating the oceans causes the release of CO2 but this heating (or cooling) takes hundreds of years to complete, hence the lack in CO2. First temperature change, then CO2 changes accordingly. CO2 is a slave of the temperature, not the controller.
2. The atmosphere contains about 4% water vapor which is a natural greenhouse gas. Moreover, water vapor is much more potent than CO2 per Mol. The concentration of water vapor is about 100 times grater than that of CO2. Changing CO2 makes little difference. Again water - which makes this planet habitable for life and covers 70% of the surface - has the most important role in the greenhouse effect. You never hear this mentioned in Nature news bulletins.
3. The real factors which control the climate is of cause our own sun. The sun is far from stable. In the latest 100 years the magnetic field of the sun has doubled in strength and the solar output has rissen. We cannot compete with the stars and the sun when it comes to controlling the planet sized climate here on earth. We are insignificantly small compared to the forces of the solar system and the galaxy - get used to it. Driving your car with a guilty conscience is ridiculous.
I urgently suggest that Nature publishing group takes a critical look at all the available science which contradicts the false claims of IPCC. IPCC wants to reshape the world for the worse. Please take a close look at their data before accepting a wrong theory which will have a devastating effects for all people on earth.
Posted by: SF | May 6, 2007 05:06 PM
sometimes the problem of greenhouse gas can not be regarded of money or benifits. it has been a threaten to human. we should work together to deal with it and ignor the little benifit. anyway nothing is more important than the envirerment.
Posted by: beggar | May 8, 2007 10:23 AM
I agree with SF totally however I'm sure that he meant "lagging BEHIND" not "lacking Behind". The Vostok ice cores from the Antarctic clearly indicate that it's temperature not CO2 that is the "driver". Anyway, thanks SF for the coherent statement.
Posted by: Gary | June 2, 2007 01:01 AM