trillions and trillions of dollars
The cost of stopping global warming is difficult to estimate as it requires a multifaceted approach involving various industries and governments. Estimates range from trillions to tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decades. Investing in renewable energy, sustainable practices, and policy changes would all be part of the solution.
A: There is no one skeptics' view on global warming. Some examples are:Some skeptics say the world is not warming at all. In fact a few even say that the world is cooling, although this flies in the face of meteorological records.Some say that if the world is warming, that is great. They think that global warming means warmer winters and more agricultural production, with no ill effects.Some say that if the world is warming, they realise that there will be winners and losers, but we expect to be among the winners. Losers could include inhabitants of Pacific Islan nations and Bangladesh, and perhaps some of our own coastal communities, but a lot of winners will live in richer nations.Some say that if the world is warming, there is nothing we can do about it. Variations on this include denying that atmospheric carbon dioxide is contributing to global warming, or that we are too powerless to stop rising levels.Some accept that global warming is real and that greenhouse gases are contributing to it, but say that rising greenhouse gas levels are not the result of human activity.Some claim that the short-term economic cost of halting global warming is more important than the long-term cost of climate change. A variation on this is to say that the evidence for global warming is still unconvincing to some, so why pay a cost now for a future benefit that might not materialise.A:Some think it isn't happening at all. They claim that more recent temperature readings are tainted by the Urban Heat Island effect.Others think even if it is happening, humans bear very little, if any, of the responsibility for it.They also point to NATURAL cycles of the Earth, the Sun, and our solar system's movement through the galaxy.Others think that, whether it is caused by humans or not, the results are not nearly as bad as predicted.
As the insurance companies put up their premiums, and people realize the cost of relocating waterside suburbs and building seawalls, and growing and developing different kinds of crops, and training farmers in new ways of agriculture, and keeping climate migrants out of their country, those who think it's a hoax may think again.
Some have claimed that climate change is not real in spite of the scientific consensus, and some have even suggested that the scientific consensus is based on the availability of government grants to perform climate research.One respected scientist who believed that global warming is not real, and who was a longtime critic of the global warming consensus, is Professor Muller, a physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming but is finding results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view. Professor Muller has conceded that the work of the three principal groups that have analysed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent ... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."
The answer is that it is less global warming than the current R134A and has an atmospheric life of only 11 days. The disadvantage is that it will cost more, require changes in vehicle design, breaks down into an acidic substance when released into the atmosphere to be washed down by rain and will require completely new equipment to service at a tremendous cost to service facilities.
The cost of stopping global warming is difficult to estimate as it requires a multifaceted approach involving various industries and governments. Estimates range from trillions to tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decades. Investing in renewable energy, sustainable practices, and policy changes would all be part of the solution.
Much, much more than the cost of attempting to stop global warming.
The greatest environmental cost of fossil fuels is their contribution to climate change through the release of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. This leads to global warming, rising sea levels, and more extreme weather patterns, all of which have detrimental effects on ecosystems and biodiversity.
They do not reduce global warming in any way they are just a source of electricity, like solar power and hydroelectricity. Solar power and wind power are renewable power sources but hydroelectricity is not due to the cost of construction and the dams breaking.
Air pollution doesn't have a "cost." But it does cause Global Warming and the atmosphere getting "clogged up" so to speak.
There is not enough renewable energy (solar, wind, water etc), so people still have to use fossil fuel energy (coal, oil and natural gas), which is causing global warming. Ordinary people can lower their energy use at home, and they can educate their parents or children, and they can lobby politicians, but until governments make industry pay the true cost of carbon pollution, then global warming will continue.
The cost and dependence on middle east countries for oil.The carbon dioxide released as pollution which is causing global warming.
A: There is no one skeptics' view on global warming. Some examples are:Some skeptics say the world is not warming at all. In fact a few even say that the world is cooling, although this flies in the face of meteorological records.Some say that if the world is warming, that is great. They think that global warming means warmer winters and more agricultural production, with no ill effects.Some say that if the world is warming, they realise that there will be winners and losers, but we expect to be among the winners. Losers could include inhabitants of Pacific Islan nations and Bangladesh, and perhaps some of our own coastal communities, but a lot of winners will live in richer nations.Some say that if the world is warming, there is nothing we can do about it. Variations on this include denying that atmospheric carbon dioxide is contributing to global warming, or that we are too powerless to stop rising levels.Some accept that global warming is real and that greenhouse gases are contributing to it, but say that rising greenhouse gas levels are not the result of human activity.Some claim that the short-term economic cost of halting global warming is more important than the long-term cost of climate change. A variation on this is to say that the evidence for global warming is still unconvincing to some, so why pay a cost now for a future benefit that might not materialise.A:Some think it isn't happening at all. They claim that more recent temperature readings are tainted by the Urban Heat Island effect.Others think even if it is happening, humans bear very little, if any, of the responsibility for it.They also point to NATURAL cycles of the Earth, the Sun, and our solar system's movement through the galaxy.Others think that, whether it is caused by humans or not, the results are not nearly as bad as predicted.
1) Environmental issues-global warming 2) Natural disasters 3) Cost of travel 4) Health warnings and epidemics 5) Terrorism
As the insurance companies put up their premiums, and people realize the cost of relocating waterside suburbs and building seawalls, and growing and developing different kinds of crops, and training farmers in new ways of agriculture, and keeping climate migrants out of their country, those who think it's a hoax may think again.
=Idon't know what detrimental means but ,I do know it's the humans our fault that other animals have to deal with global warming. Com' on I mean, like, how the south pole is melting Animals can't do anything 'bout global warming because their not the ones causing it. Humans pollute throw out the plastic, metal, aluminum and other things. OK yeah recycling cost a lot but, if you recycle you don't have to worry about your grandchildren ya know- dying. Oh and all the animals and plants dying. Just guess what would happen then? Yep you guessed it no life on Earth.=
Yes, it is possible and in fact we must do so. We can either choose to begin now, while the short-tem economic cost of controlling global warming is still low and while temperatures can be stabilised only a little above present levels, or we can wait until the costs are high and the damage caused by climate change is already quite apparent. We can control global warming by moving towards an economy that does not rely on emitting carbon dioxide and methane. We can use alternative fuels instead of fossil fuels, and we can become more fuel-efficient. We can also implement and enforce bans on deforestation.