|
Correcting the Problem Is the Least Expensive Option
Climate Change storm damage will cost more than switching to clean energy.
Date: 12/7/2012 7:26:20 PM ( 12 y ) ... viewed 8574 times Correcting the Problem Is the Least Expensive Option
"The sooner we act the less it costs, Changing to clean energy will cost us less than not taking action"
This is the message coming out of Doha, the Climate Change Conference on now.
IF we had acted in 1990, when the problem became clear, we could already be declaring victory over climate change, we would have avoided $100s of Billions in storm damages and many fewer lives would have been lost... and THE COST would have been LESS than the amount of storm damage suffered since 1990.
That's right, that is what I am saying - the amount of money lost to storm damage would have MORE THAN PAID FOR the switch to clean energy!!
The amount of money we would have SAVED by reducing CO2 emissions in 1990 would have covered the cost of setting up enough renewable energy capacity to meet our energy needs now, and our emissions would be 90% less than they are now.
If we had done the right thing in 1990 we would be okay now, and it would not have cost much at all compared to what we spent anyhow.
Did I say it enough times yet? Not if you have not thought of this - IF WE ACT NOW there will be less catastrophic climate change, including extreme weather storm damage, over the next 20 years to pay for the switch to clean energy.
We really missed the boat in 1990. Should we miss this one too? It WILL BE THE LAST ONE!!! - if we have not done anything to drastically reduce CO2 emissions by the time we get to the year 2030 the effects of climate change will have caused so much damage that we won't ever recover.
Sadly, by 2030, the economy will be ruined too. So, if "we" are delaying change to save the economy, it will be ruined anyhow. It is really shortsighted, extremely stupid, to keep on this same path for the sake of the economy.
"WE" is in quote marks in the previous paragraph because it is not you and I, it is the Big Oil Bosses who are keeping change from happening. They have had great success with their well-funded climate change denial campaigns [you were fooled weren't you Tom?] and they have great influence over governments and "globally powerful Elites" who listen to the Oil Company bosses.
So because of the oilmen, we did not act in 1990, and that costs us a lot. Big Tobacco has had to pay $Billions in lawsuits for the health effects of their product... Big Oil, someday, will have to pay much bigger fines for the effects of their product. Big Oil could become Big Energy by switching to renewables, they would still be the world's biggest industry... but their bosses really and truly do not believe that global warming is real.
That is worth repeating - Big Oil Bosses really and truly do not believe that global warming is real. They do not believe their product - oil - is doing any harm. This seems stunning considering that Chevron was fined $18 Billion by Ecuador for the damage they caused to the environment there [huge areas of devastation and pollution, oil spills, etc].
So, how do YOU feel about the future hopes of the human race being lost to a few powerful people who are living in denial of reality? It is really a sad thing to lose so much when there is a viable option that will cost less the sooner we act, that will cost less than not acting...
"Changing to clean energy will cost less than NOT acting, and the sooner we act the less it costs". Hmmm, sounds like a sane plan to me!! Too bad we have madmen running things...
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites! Print this page
Email this page
 Alert Webmaster
|
