What do you think of the Florida report finding that a 50% greenhouse gas emissions cut will save $28 billion?

Question

Recently, California performed some studies which found that reducing the state's greenhouse gas emissions to address global warming would actually save it money.
http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/23/the-savings-from-cutting-californias-carbon-outweigh-the-costs/

Florida just completed a study with very similar results. The Action Team finds that an aggressive set of strategies could reduce Florida greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 50% from 2005 levels by 2025.

"The total net cost savings of all Action Team recommendations combined is more than $28 billion from 2009 to 2025. Additionally, the recommendations would increase Florida’s energy security by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels resulting in a total fuel savings of 53.5 billion gallons of petroleum, 200.2 million short tons of coal, and 6.394 billion ft.³ of natural gas during the period of 2009 through 2025."
http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/17/florida-part-1-a-50-ghg-cut-by-2025-will-save-the-state-28-billion/

Seems pretty impressive to me. What do you think of this report?

Answer 1

Many states and nations have come to the same conclusions. The cost of inaction is extremely high. Actions to cut emissions are expected to have positive economic impact (new technology and jobs, for instance), and many peripheral benefits.



Both states you mention will suffer from coastal impacts if the matter is not handled, as you say, aggressively. Jobs will be lost. Both states stand to lose in agriculture alone due to the projected instability of deciding what crops will work in any given time period. Crop losses are costly, to say the least. It's a guessing game even in the best of circumstances. Climate change promises to complicate things dramatically.



Way to much to go into here, but suffice it to say that even if the numbers change -- government reports tend to be conservative, and the savings could be higher -- the savings will be there across the board. These efforts are impressive, and in part a byproduct of federal inaction on the issue. Hopefully that will change, and we'll see a united effort throughout the country to deal with the impacts of climate change in a cost effective manner.

Answer 2

It sounds like a good idea if it saves money in the long term and doesnt damage the economy, of course its based on the assumption the cost of oil will rocket, but it probably will to some extent.



I am all for it as long as they are not replacing petrol with harmfull 1st generation biofuels.



I am a fan of long term planning, spend a bit extra now to save money in the future. Why design a road for 10 years when for 5% extra cost it could last a hundred?



Unfortunetly being involved with local government I am also all to aware that most politicians / accountants will not spend now so someone else can benefit in 20 odd years, as they know they will only be in office for so long. If they do put the scheme in place than it would be a great thing.



Just a point about the above comment europe is on target for their co2 emissions, thats only becuase their figures ignore the industy they shipped to China. They have reduced co2 output in Europe, but overall they have increased it when the industy in China is included, thats why carbon trading doesnt work currently. It just pushes allready understrain business overseas where its cheaper.

Answer 3

Conservatists will argue that the finding suggests that in order to save you need to lose economic prosperity. The statement is simply not true. Florida and California will actually be saving and thriving by investing in the future. The next stage of worldwide economic prosperity will only come through making out current lifestyle more efficient and sustainable.



Now is the time for strategic investment in Florida’s low-carbon energy infrastructure if we are to be successful in diversifying the state’s economy, creating new job opportunities, and positioning Florida’s “green tech” sector as an economic engine for growth.



Crutzen knows better. He signed the Must Read Bali Climate Declaration by Scientists, which acknowledged that to avoid catastrophic impacts “global emissions must peak and decline in the next 10 to 15 years.” A global economic slowdown doesn’t increase the chances of that happening. Quite the reverse.

Answer 4

I find it to be a laugh riot. Won't ever happen though. If the economy goes down the tubes (which it looks like it is going in that direction) global warming will not be the big concern some people (who shall remain nameless) seem to think it is.

Answer 5

It is called the liberal dream movement the limits to growth religion, or by its real world name, the back to the stone age except for the blue blooded elite’s that founded the movement.



Global warming as advertised in the AGW hypotheses does not exist and has never existed. The myth is based on a very bad misunderstanding of how the greenhouse effect functions in the real world and an even more misunderstood version of the function of Co2 in the atmosphere.



How Co2 really works



Well I have been looking for months for this core explanation of how Co2 works in the atmosphere. This is what I learned in school 50 years ago and why the current AGW hypotheses was so strange when proposed. Well it is strange all right because it is completely fictional, here is the true time tested way it really works!



http://nov55.com/ntyg.html



For more information that debunks the AGW fictions about Co2 I recommend the two articles below of which one is a PDF reprint of a published document and the other is a PowerPoint paper on what is Co2, friend or foe.



http://www.co2web.info/np-m-119.pdf



http://www.co2web.info/whatisco2.pps

Answer 6

Yet California is holding its hands out, begging the Federal government for $7 billion from other states tax payers. All this while having the most polluted environment of any of the 50 states in the union.



But as always from liberals, the results don't matter and should not be considered. It's the feelings one gets when talking about caring for the environment. As long as the programs make you feel good, results are just nuisance indicators.



Of course the flaw remains that no one can predict the future. Liberals look at the problem and assume that their actions will only provide the results they intend. The law of unintended consequences is never considered and eventually cause the downfall of short sighted plans.



The brochure is pretty. I guess that should count for something.

Answer 7

Spending now to save more latter is not the American way. Only Europeans do that. And everything Europe does in many American eyes is socialist, although many people who might think that probably haven't lived in Europe.



BTW, a new report came out that showed Kyoto signatory nations in Europe are on track to meet the requirements of CO2 reduction by 2012. It's also worthy to note that their economies are on a more solid ground than ours.

Answer 8

That's good news, I am all for it.

Answer 9

thanks dana, looks good on first glance. i'll file this with the stern report and this;

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg20026786.000-special-report-how-the-economy-is-killing-the-earth.html



and these;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/17/marketturmoil-climatechange

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg20026783.100-financial-crisis-a-chance-for-change-says-un.html



in my new section on sustainable economics

Answer 10

Randel got it right. I suggest you study his answer. Re-read, then re-read it again. The only savings you are going to get is for people to use less energy, i.e they travel less, they produce less, they own less, they emit less. That is the type of plan the alarmist want to push on us. Are they really that dense that they don't get it. Apparently.

Answer 11

If they really believe in it, they will implement these policies.

Answer 12

It actually makes sense in the long run. Now whether or not we have the balls to implement it remains to be seen.

Answer 13

It's excrement.



Let's see, California is completely broke, and according to its policies, the state seems to think it can have electricity while banning every possible method of creating it.



If there is one state that needs to be completely ignored when it comes to questions of financial solvency it's California.

Answer 14

Less economic activity would use fewer resources.



What a brilliant observation.



At that rate let's just move back to caves.

Answer 15

Maybe California and Florida can have a reciprocating lending agreement and keep their hands out of my pocket.

Answer 16

the figures lie and the liars figure.