Should money matter with regards to coping with global warming?

Question

Regarding rich and poor countries.

Answer 1

Sure. The world needs to come up with a good balance of activities, some designed to reduce global warming, others designed to deal with the effects.



Money is crucial in figuring out the right balance.

Answer 2

There are schemes that are currently being considered that will remove more CO2 from the atmosphere than humans produce - we could continue exactly as we are now and at the same time actually reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The cost of such a scheme is about $300 per person to set up and about $50 a year per person to run. I think that's a very small price to pay if it means we can live as we're accustomed to and eliminate global warming at the same time.



Specifically to answer your question - money spent now is a wise long term investment and provided we're sensible then money shouldn't matter (within reason). If spending 2 trillion now means saving 400 trillion in the future then it's money well spent.



If the cost was borne proportionately based on those polluting the most paying the most then it would be the rich countries that paid the most and the poorer ones that paid the least (for example - each person in the US produces 19.8 tons of CO2 a year, each person in Chad produces 10kg).

Answer 3

There is no global warming, it's political BS.



CO2 levels are a very small percentage of our Earth's atmosphere.

You know what generates and absorbs the greatest percentage of 'greenhouse gas'? THE OCEAN!

The amount of Co2 made by other means is LESS than 1%! The greatest generator of CO2 in that 1% is Volcanos!

The amount left after that is mostly organic life generating Co2 naturally. One of the lowest percentages of CO2 emitters out of what's left of that 1% is human.

What humans make is in the THOUSANDTHS of a percent! How can Gore say that what we produce has ANY effect of the other 99.99%??

Plus, he tries to stigmatize CO2 likes it's man-made. It's completley natural and is abundant in nature and all living things.

How does he explain the fact that the current relative tempature is far below what it was in the past - even before man learned how to use fire? What about the hundreds of years during the medevil times when it was much warmer than it is now?

He never brings up the fact that his charts are aligned to hide the 800 year gap between the CO2 and mean temps on a timeline.

Which would show how CO2 follows temps changes.

Global warming is one of the biggest scams in human history.

Answer 4

If it wasn't for money this world would have been a fantastic place long, long ago.



Money will matter. There are too many people in the world of industry, commerce and governemnt who only think short term. So while they can get fatter and enjoy their lot why should they change anything?

Answer 5

I can't say if it should or shouldn't, but it DOES. The trouble with so many environmentalists is that they refuse to believe that money matters. They don't care that electricity made with solar panels costs 10 times more than electricity made with fossil fuels. They only see the smoke and say that it is bad. I agree the smoke is bad, but not so bad that we should give up 90% of our electricity to stop it.

Answer 6

money matters always,whether it's global warming or global cooling.money is the only bartering tool that is worldwide.

Answer 7

No. Each country should have to pay in accordance to the amount of toxins they've produced.

Answer 8

Spending more money up front will save money and the environment in the future.

Answer 9

no