A Brief Look at Climate Change

The world economy is a very complex system; in the system harmful externalities disrupt capital flows and determine economic productivity. Most notable of these externalities is inadvertent global warming. Spending towards research and regulation of climate change at both the national and international level are very important in determining current and future business trends. Economists and scientists worldwide continuously debate the pros and cons of emissions reduction and what consequences can quickly follow. Though many have different views on the issue, all can agree that the immediate and long term effects of climate change have become an economic matter of paramount importance. The sweeping impact from climate change will have important fiscal, financial, and macroeconomic ramifications that influence global commerce standards.

Global warming and climate change attributed to increased emission of greenhouse gases have continued to be pressing issues in today’s society since they threaten the stability of the climate, population, and economy of the world (“Meeting the Energy Challenge”, 2007). The challenges associated with global warming and climate change is attributed to the fact that 75 percent of world’s carbon dioxide

It is becoming increasingly certain that climate change will have severe adverse effects on the environment in years to come. Addressing this issue poses a serious challenge for policy makers. How we choose to respond to the threat of global warming is not simply a political issue. It is also an economic issue and an ethical one. Responsible, effective climate change policy requires consideration of a number of complex factors, including weighing the costs of implementing climate change policies against the benefits of more environmentally sustainable practices. Furthermore, this analysis must take place amidst serious gaps in the existing research and technology concerning the developing climatic condition.

Fumento, Michael. “The Cooling Off on Global Warming.” The Washington Times 8 July 1999: 15. LexisNexis Academic . Academic Universe. W. I. Dykes Lib., University of Houston-Downtown. 20 Feb. 2010 http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.uhd.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/

At the same time, evidence is mounting that any economic strategy that ignores carbon pollution will impose tremendous costs to the global economy and will result in fewer jobs and less economic growth over the long term. Estimates of the economic damages from warming of 4°C over preindustrial levels range from 1% to 5% of global GDP each year by 2100 (4). One of the most frequently cited economic models pins the estimate of annual damages from warming of 4°C at ~4% of global GDP (4–6), which could lead to lost U.S. federal revenue of roughly $340 billion to $690 billion annually (7).

At this point in time our possible solutions to the global warming are few; our technologies aren’t advanced enough to take the brunt of energy production and wean away from fossil fuel, and we have been too passive for too long regarding our CO2 emissions that’s it’s not feasible to either use cap and trade, or a flat out reduction of CO2. At our current rate of growth, energy from alternative energy sources will be around 8% of the total energy usage by 2025 (Butler 3). This is not nearly enough to be used as a feasible solution to combat our rising CO2 production, and by the time this is feasible, sever climate changes may have

According to expert’s estimations, the economic cost associated with climate change events in Latin America with a temperature rise of 2°C, is in the order of 85-110 billion per year by 2050 (Fernandes et. al. 2012, Dasgupta et. al. 2007, Vergara et. al. 2013 & Vergara et. al. 2007). Economic injuries of this magnitude, can erode the development path of countries like Colombia and Mexico . The restriction to natural resources access will undermine countries´ prospects for

Nature’s Price Tag” discusses the misconceptions we have about preserving “natures service,” as a burden on the economic growth, and how we shouldn't let the economy drive the direction of our climate. Doing something now, will prevent a lot of future damages and generations to come, will be better off. The barrier that often stops addressing climate change in the denial industry of it all. As mention in class, the denial of climate change means that they simply don't have to do anything about it because nature will either run its course or the changes isn't anything to be alarm about. Goulder and Juniper presented clear ideas of how to lets nature dictates the economy, as it will proved for us in the long haul.

One of the two methods Jamieson discusses to prevent the exacerbation of climate change is the Calculations Based Method. This strategy is concerned with the economic aspect of combatting climate change. To follow this route, researchers must determine the possible financial strains of each path and its subsequent outcomes. With this information, we can weigh the benefits that are the result of following that strategy against what it would cost to put it in place to begin with. The benefits are determined based on a preference-satisfaction criterion; what we want is what we pursue, and so what we pursue is what is good because it satisfies our want. We do not want Earth’s mean temperature to rise because it would cause millions of death, however, we do not want economic failure which is what would occur with the cessation of the use of greenhouse gases.

Earth is an immeasurably complex planet, and the processes that make it so are equally as intricate. It is this same intricacy, however, that makes the Earth so vulnerable to even the slightest variation in overall temperature or change within the gases that which compose the atmosphere. What We Know About Climate Change by Kerry Emanuel aims to address this issue of Earth’s vulnerability head-on as it suggests the plausible causes for the undeniable planetary warming observed in the last century all the while proposing pragmatic solutions to discontinue the unnatural processes credited with the abnormal warming.

Currently chaired by Mr. Rajendra Pachauri, this organisation was setup in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Programme. IPCC reports on the scientific, technical and socio-economic information needed to understand the

They looked at two scenarios, inaction, where business’ continue finding and using carbon as they see fit, and action, where business’ use a low-carbon energy mix. They found that not only would the investment cost of the action scenario be no more than inaction, but it would even cost a bit less- 190.2 trillion dollars for action and 192 trillion dollars for inaction. This is before even considering the amount of money saved by the effects of the action scenario itself. The report found that, “the difference in climate damage costs between low (1.5°C) warming and high (4.5°C) warming scenarios could be as high as $50 trillion” (Business Insider). The effect of such a large economic company reporting this data is the perfect example of how using economics for the sake of reversing global warming can be really beneficial. The argument often used by economists is that becoming more sustainable would hurt the economy, but the data in this report proves just the opposite, and how terrible it would be if we did nothing. For the sake of investment in industry’s like coal and gas, this information is often denied. But this is not anywhere near the first time industry’s have had to adapt due to uncontrollable events. This report emphasizes the importance of recognizing

Within the past few decades, there has been no political or public discussion as heated and controversial as the debate over climate change. Climate disputes can be traced back all the way to 1837, when Louis Agassiz proposed a theory claiming that Switzerland had once been covered with large ice sheets, and have become a big part of the international scientific community since then (Archer and Rahmstorf 2010). Today, climate change is not only a scientific issue, but it has grown into an economic and political issue as well. The rising amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, most of which has been added through human activities, has caused a climb in the average temperatures around the planet. This can have huge effects on the future

Throughout the expanse of this paper I will be utilizing terms and phrases that may be unfamiliar to some individuals. This particular potion of this essay will be dedicated to defining any foreign jargon before delving more deeply into the topic at hand. A prima facie wrong, a phrase already employed in this paper, is the notion that an action may look wrong at first glance, but upon further inspection, and in actuality, nothing may be wrong at all. A couple acronyms will also be stated during the course of this argument: AGCC, ICI, and GHGs. Anthropogenic global climate change can be broken down into the term AGCC, while GHGs are the shortened manner of saying greenhouse gas emissions. The most vital acronym of the three is most certainly ICI, which when elaborated means individual causal inefficacy. Individual casual inefficacy states that common individual actions are too causally insignificant to make any difference with regard to climate change . The definition and importance of these terms will play a role throughout the duration of this paper.

Conservative, radical and liberal economists would respond to this topic in a variety of ways. Liberals can’t agree with economic stability, as they want wealth spread out equally among the population. They also don’t like the byproducts of economic growth, such as pollution. A liberal economist would want to have government intervention, so they can help pass laws on climate change. A liberal economist goal would be to set restrictions on pollution in order to mitigate climate change. A liberal focuses on future generations and how today 's society can save the climate for one 's kids and future generations.