Combating climate change may not be a question of who will carry the burden but could instead be a rush for the benefits, according to new economic modeling presented at “Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions” hosted by the University of Copenhagen.
Contrary to current cost models for lowering greenhouse gas emissions and fighting climate change, a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge conclude that even very stringent reductions of can create a macroeconomic benefit, if governments go about it the right way.
“Where many current calculations get it wrong is in the assumption that more stringent measures will necessarily raise the overall cost, especially when there is substantial unemployment and underuse of capacity as there is today”, explains Terry Barker, Director of Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR), Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge and a member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Congress.
In the United States we face over a hundred new taxes this year based on the so called man-made climate change. I do believe our wastes have contributed to many problems, just not climate changes. I also find it interesting anytime someone or a company comes up with new technology to help reduce emissions, our government stops them in the tracks. A couple years ago I looked into a device that would increase gas mileage 200-400% and would eliminate emissions. This technology was tested over and over and was proven to work flawlessly. Our lovely FTC haulted their operations saying they were making false claims. I was happy to hear they were able to continue operations because they proved their technology could do what they said it could do. This is more proof our government here in the US does not care about the environment. If they did, they would make it mandatory that every vehicle in the US install the new pre-ignition catalytic converter. Not only does it eliminate emissions, but it also decreases the demand of fuel by 50%-75%. Just because I do not believe climate change is man-made doesn’t mean I don’t want to breathe clean air. I would love to see the day we no longer rely on fossil fuels.
Another example is the lack of use of hemp and bamboo. These renewable resources are not being utilized to their full potential. Here in the US we can’t even grow hemp for industrial purposes. We could also make fuel from hemp. A much better alternative to ethanol and fossil fuel.
The reason I keep writing regarding the climate change issue is due to the fact I am really worried about certain environmental issues. Here in the US they are trying to outlaw organic growing and home gardening. GMO’s are infecting every part of this country and we can longer safely grow heirloom and organic produce without the worry of genetic contamination from GMOs. They have completely destroyed the soil on our agriculture lands. The quality of our food has gotten so bad that disease has become a pandemic.
My main point is our governments are not going to solve this problem. They will use it as an excuse to tax us. We are the solution. Only we can make a difference through our daily practices and our contributions to improve the quality of our environment.
Combating climate change may not be a question of who will carry the burden but could instead be a rush for the benefits, according to new economic modeling presented at “Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions” hosted by the University of Copenhagen.
Contrary to current cost models for lowering greenhouse gas emissions and fighting climate change, a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge conclude that even very stringent reductions of can create a macroeconomic benefit, if governments go about it the right way.
“Where many current calculations get it wrong is in the assumption that more stringent measures will necessarily raise the overall cost, especially when there is substantial unemployment and underuse of capacity as there is today”, explains Terry Barker, Director of Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR), Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge and a member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Congress.
In the United States we face over a hundred new taxes this year based on the so called man-made climate change. I do believe our wastes have contributed to many problems, just not climate changes. I also find it interesting anytime someone or a company comes up with new technology to help reduce emissions, our government stops them in the tracks. A couple years ago I looked into a device that would increase gas mileage 200-400% and would eliminate emissions. This technology was tested over and over and was proven to work flawlessly. Our lovely FTC haulted their operations saying they were making false claims. I was happy to hear they were able to continue operations because they proved their technology could do what they said it could do. This is more proof our government here in the US does not care about the environment. If they did, they would make it mandatory that every vehicle in the US install the new pre-ignition catalytic converter. Not only does it eliminate emissions, but it also decreases the demand of fuel by 50%-75%. Just because I do not believe climate change is man-made doesn’t mean I don’t want to breathe clean air. I would love to see the day we no longer rely on fossil fuels.
Another example is the lack of use of hemp and bamboo. These renewable resources are not being utilized to their full potential. Here in the US we can’t even grow hemp for industrial purposes. We could also make fuel from hemp. A much better alternative to ethanol and fossil fuel.
The reason I keep writing regarding the climate change issue is due to the fact I am really worried about certain environmental issues. Here in the US they are trying to outlaw organic growing and home gardening. GMO’s are infecting every part of this country and we can longer safely grow heirloom and organic produce without the worry of genetic contamination from GMOs. They have completely destroyed the soil on our agriculture lands. The quality of our food has gotten so bad that disease has become a pandemic.
My main point is our governments are not going to solve this problem. They will use it as an excuse to tax us. We are the solution. Only we can make a difference through our daily practices and our contributions to improve the quality of our environment.