Sunday, February 07, 2010

370 billion USD

That's the amount which arctic warming will cost us this year. It's calculated on the social cost of carbon: the cost on agriculture, power generation resources, everything. By 2050, arctic warming would have cost us 2.4 trillion USD that year. We all know that for Harper, his numbers in the polls are the most important issue before he gets his majority. So, that means concentrating on the economy. This warming is costing us billions of dollars. So, Harper's "working" on the economy and yet, he doesn't care about the 370 billion USD that is going to be lost this year. It is time that we turn this trend around and start protecting the environment.

The study estimated that melting sea ice and permafrost as well as dwindling snow cover would cost the world between $61 billion and $370 billion US in 2010.
The authors predict that will rise to at least $2.4 trillion by the year 2050.
The study is the first to put an estimated dollar value on global warming resulting from the Arctic's declining ability to act as "air conditioner" of the planet.
It arrived at its number by estimating how much the loss of snow, ice and permafrost would have on warming, expressing that in equivalent tonnes of carbon dioxide and multiplying that increase by what it called the "social cost of carbon." Those include estimates of the cost of climate change on agriculture, energy production, water availability, sea level rise, and flooding.

Read more:


  1. Glo-Bull Warming is nothing but BS.

    Liberaland is the place of lollipops, fairy tales and unicorns.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. I can only imagine how close the cost calculation comes to representing any form of reality. "Social cost of carbon" is a euphamism (sp?) for "unmeasureable, made up number to make GW seems way worse than it really is." As is typical of 'studies' like this I suspect the 'social benefits of carbon' is ignored completely, like fewer cold related deaths and a longer growing season.

    It's like only looking at the withdraws in your bank account and concluding you are broke.

  4. However, Frunger, global warming encourages droughts and floods in places where crops have been able to grow. Therefore, a "longer" growing season might be cut short by these climate change caused disasters.

  5. Frunger: Although you are correct that methodological issues cloud these kinds of predictions, the precautionary principle demands that we at least start putting into place a global infrastructure to lower carbon emissions. The first steps in carbon reduction won't bankrupt the world economy.


Any highly offensive matter will be deleted whether it be solid, water, gas or plasma. No comments from outsiders represent the opinions of Owner and Doggy or vanillaman. We reserve the right to delete any comments without explanation.