“An exposé of planetary scale.”
~JAMES E. HANSEN  
 
Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science

Desmog Video

You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.


 



Spinning the economic "doom and gloom" of global warming has lost credibility

ThinkProgress has a great piece today outlining the Republican (and their sympathetic media) attempts to frame greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies as devastating to the US economy. 

The report released today by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change focussed on potential C02 mitigation plans and the economics of implementing such plans. The authors of the summary report conclude that, "the cost of reducing CO2 emissions to a stable level will be about .12% of the annual gross domestic product." When you consider how many people currently inhabit the earth, this dollar amount is pennies compared to the potential devastation to our environment and way of life.

It's not surprising, that the likes of right-wing media star Rush Limbaugh has a different take on the costs. To quote: “[Liberals] would have us destroy our economy and millions of jobs based on pseudoscience.” 

And of the same mind is former chair of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Jim Inhofe (R-OK): “Global warming is an alarmism. It’s a type of a hoax. The reality is that a cap on carbon is a cap on the economy.”

The chances of Inhofe and Limbaugh coming out with a public mea culpa are very minimal. At the least, let's hope that the sobering words of the leading experts on climate change today will play some role in cooling down the doom and gloom rhetoric on the right that has played such a huge role in delaying any real action by the US government to curb greenhouse gas emissions. 



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Whereas I have a sense of who the experts are in the science of AGW, I have no sense that the econometricians (or whatever) involved in this report are the best or representative or …. For all I know, they could be as biased as those who put together the Conservatives’ (Canadian govt) report on costs of adhering to Kyoto. Of course I should address my lack of knowledge here, probably by reading the report, but maybe there are other sources to check?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

FOLLOW US!
 
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-NEWSLETTER
Get our Top 5 stories in your inbox weekly.
DESMOG TIP JAR
Help us clear the PR pollution that clouds climate science.

About the climate cover-up

About the climate cover-up

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.


www.know-the-number.com

Our Climate is Changing!
Please download Flash Player.