jroy375 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

This is the economist stand: If something can't be counted, it doesn't count. Such as human life. So, if Kyoto might cost 150billion/yr (ambiguous figure, no one really knows where this came from), the alternative is what? First, the economic cost, trillions of dollars possibly. Second, social cost, likely 150 million climate refugees (according to UN). And third, environmental cost, likely exponential increase in loss of biodiversity (species loss, etc.). Climate change is our #1 priority.

jroy375 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@ PerfektBlue: methane + oxygen + flame carbon dioxide + steam + EXPLOSION In other words, the combustion of all Siberian subterranean methane will pose an IMMENSE amount of harm, both because of the resulting explosion, and the enormous amount of carbon dioxide that would result. All in all, STUPID idea. In terms of a realistic solution, check out Barack Obama's energy/environment agenda. It seems quite promising, so long as he goes through with all of it.

prebenso (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

the economist have now decided that the financial secter is the most importent in the scale 1000 billion to 75 billion to the environment just to put his shit in perpective. If the your leaders were not insane we could fix it all without any prioriticing

Animalll2003lll (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

we need the best estimation on this brought to the public before anyone buy in Kyoto or any other green policy. now for what you say about peak oil and global warming, that's for sure. if we don't have oil anymore we can't release CO2 massively like we did in the last 100 yrs. we'll still have oil 100 yrs yep, but its going to get gradually more and more expensive. sure we need to invest in green techs when the economy is still ok and oil still relatively cheap.

Animalll2003lll (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Hi! I'm not an 'eco' not at all, I'm just trying to get my infos straight. in the last days I tried to get info about how much CO2 is driving the temperature. apparently it's not that much. the greenhouse effect doesn't look as dramatic as I thought. but I think arguments against global warming should revolve around that---not around plants need CO2 to survive, or plants will consume more CO2, etc...that is true but off topic. what we need to know is HOW MUCH WILL CO2 INCREASE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE

PerfektBlue (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Newsflash Peak oil and human made global warming are contradictory ! If you have no oil to burn then you have no CO2 and if it ends in the short run then we are fucked. Carbon taxes and other bullshit will hurt us more because of peak oil imagine how many wing turbines or solar plants you could build if you could burn oil without restrictions. Carbon tax = less green tech. If it comes down you need energy (Oil/gas that produce CO2) to build sufficient green tech.

PerfektBlue (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

O yes because we dont have this magic invention named fire that we could magically drop into the caves and magically the methane will combust and pose no harm.

PerfektBlue (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Dude a iron sphere 2 meters in diameter being dropt from orbit haze a impact of 50 atom booms. And thus people shit their pants that the climate will me warmer in 100 yarest about a 1 degree and water rises 5 centimeters I say fuck it build a space defense platform.

PerfektBlue (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I love ecos everything that contradicts your faith is evil HAHAHA. People Try not to contradict reality answering my points OK ? 1) Plants need CO2 to survive 2) Plants flourish better in a warmer climate hence consume more CO2 (most plants on this planet live under water in the oceans ) 3) IPCC predicts at a maximum a temperature rise of 1 to 5 Celsius and 5 centimeters rise in 2100 4) We will run out of oil in 2100 and have nothing to combust into the atmosphere

LordKarmaUSA (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Fortunately, this man's opinions are not important to most decision makers. Over population is the #1 Population problem and doing nothing about any of the things on his list will take care of that. In a world where mankind dominates, the planet suffers; a world where only the most fit exist, the planet flourishes and so does mankind.