Obama Administration: Global Warming Will Cost Us Unless We Take Action

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Obama Administration: Global Warming Will Cost Us Unless We Take Action

In a report released on Monday, the White House shows the economic and health benefits of taking action against climate change. Changes made now, says the report, could save lives.

The Obama Administration has released a report on Monday that takes a hard look at climate change, and whether the cost would be higher to take or action or do nothing in the face of global warming. Their findings: decisions and policy changes today will save not only lives, but billions of dollars by the end of the century.

The report, titled Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action, compares two possible scenarios: one in which the global community dramatically adjusts itself to the ongoing climate disaster, and one in which no action is taken whatsoever. From there, it extrapolates the differences in health, economy, and ecosystem impacts under the two different futures.

Says Gina McCarthy, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, "The report finds that we can save tens of thousands of American lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars, annually in the United States by the end of this century, and the sooner we act, the better off America and future generations of Americans will be."

More from the Escapist: The Sad Truth About Global Warming

While the Obama White House is vague on its approval of the theory of man-made climate change, they still suggest that adaptations in our ways of life and business will have immense impact. Lowering greenhouse gas emissions across the board will certainly slow the rate of change, says the report - and the responsibility will fall on citizens, businesses, and governments alike.

The report, in development for months, comes on the heels of Pope Francis issuing an encyclical on climate change. The Catholic religious leader demanded immediate action, saying it is now our spiritual duty to protect the environment.

Meanwhile, a research paper published in The Lancet examined the potential "catastrophic risk" that climate change poses to global health.

Says the Lancet paper, some of the health risks are obvious - hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, heat waves and other weather extremes are already occurring at a frightening frequency across the globe, a rate which is bound to increase. More insidious threats include asthma, allergies, and various respiratory ailments and diseases caused by air pollution, not to mention droughts leading to food shortages. A collapse of ecosystems could put various types of disease carriers in touch with humans, causing contagion on a broad scale.

See more: The Escapist on the environment.

"Global warming" is what many grew up calling the phenomenon, but it has become increasingly clear over the past decades that "climate change" is a more appropriate term. While the Earth as a whole is warming gradually, havoc is being wrought with individual climes. Some regions experience deeper, colder winters than ever before; others have uncharacteristic heat spikes. Sea levels are rising, threatening millions around the world, while unprecedented droughts ravage food supplies.

It is largely agreed now that an accumulation of greenhouse gases, among many other factors, has at the very least exacerbated the situation, if not triggered it. While any of the gases on their own can be produced naturally, it is also widely known that human influence puts them into our atmosphere at a far, far faster rate than nature normally could.

Source: White House Report, TIME, The Lancet Report

Permalink

I understand that not every article on this site is about gaming...but most at least have some tie-in to "geek culture". Really gotta wonder what a straight-up politics article is doing here.

OT: Eh, personally I kinda welcome the end of the world. I'd like to see which is more accurate: The Day After Tomorrow or Water World. :P

Edit:
Wow, apparently the funniest part of my joke - the 2nd bit in the post above - was how many people have apparently taken that statement seriously. :P

I can't wait to see the new wave of conspiracy theories to come out of this.

Personally, I'm hoping that someone tries to connect the President and the Pope as being in cahoots via [insert secret society here].

Assuming that hasn't happened already, of course.

The problem with all issues like this is that people in general are extremely short sighted. If you want to fix a problem that won't affect them in their lifetime, good luck getting them to commit to it. Let alone want to PAY for it.

climate change happens the problem is how much are we affecting it and can we do anything to stop it if we are

Meh I've long since given up on global warming. Even if we did dramatically reduce our consumption (which won't happen) between the permafrost and the ocean claptrap were kinda doomed anyway, beside the CO2, methane and water vapor is already in the atmosphere. Our only hope would be massive geo-engineering and the cost are so insanely staggering no one would ever green light it. Other possibility include space colonization, good luck with that, you know things are shit when plan-B is "leave the earth".

So yeah, I just hope I'll be dead when humanity feel the brunt of it and I'll make sure I don't have kid cause that'd be just cruel.

RJ 17:
I understand that not every article on this site is about gaming...but most at least have some tie-in to "geek culture". Really gotta wonder what a straight-up politics article is doing here.

Personally I don't consider this to be a straight-up politics article. The Escapist is a geeky website, often includes scientific articles, and, well, Climate Change is a big science topic. It's only political because many politicians seemingly prefer not to listen to the experts on the topic.

OT: Eh, personally I kinda welcome the end of the world. I'd like to see which is more accurate: The Day After Tomorrow or Water World. :P

Can I say both? Water World is more realistic (purely because it doesn't have ice hurricanes), but I'm expecting to see some of the extreme weather variation that The Day After Tomorrow had...

In any case, if the End of the World doesn't come with Zombies, then I'm really not interested...

The_Darkness:

RJ 17:
I understand that not every article on this site is about gaming...but most at least have some tie-in to "geek culture". Really gotta wonder what a straight-up politics article is doing here.

Personally I don't consider this to be a straight-up politics article. The Escapist is a geeky website, often includes scientific articles, and, well, Climate Change is a big science topic. It's only political because many politicians seemingly prefer not to listen to the experts on the topic.

OT: Eh, personally I kinda welcome the end of the world. I'd like to see which is more accurate: The Day After Tomorrow or Water World. :P

Can I say both? Water World is more realistic (purely because it doesn't have ice hurricanes), but I'm expecting to see some of the extreme weather variation that The Day After Tomorrow had...

In any case, if the End of the World doesn't come with Zombies, then I'm really not interested...

I'd also call it a politics article. They didn't come up with new information, or have any useful science done, but they're using old bad science to extrapolate out 100 years and calling it good science. It's politics, pure and simple. Same as the blasted corn ethanol program that's been expanded so much. It looks good to idiots and hinders the actual environment while allowing him to engage in more crony capitalism. I expect more cronyism in the future from this.

Ummm... duh? We've known this. For fucking years. Why is this a surprise to anyone?

Scrythe:
I can't wait to see the new wave of conspiracy theories to come out of this.

Personally, I'm hoping that someone tries to connect the President and the Pope as being in cahoots via [insert secret society here].

Assuming that hasn't happened already, of course.

So secret society. Just the lizard people.

I, for one, welcome our new reptiloid overlords!

Alar:
Ummm... duh? We've known this. For fucking years. Why is this a surprise to anyone?

Because it's been played as a "controversy" in the media and court of public opinion?

global warming Talks in a nutshell

Meiam:
Meh I've long since given up on global warming. Even if we did dramatically reduce our consumption (which won't happen) between the permafrost and the ocean claptrap were kinda doomed anyway, beside the CO2, methane and water vapor is already in the atmosphere. Our only hope would be massive geo-engineering and the cost are so insanely staggering no one would ever green light it. Other possibility include space colonization, good luck with that, you know things are shit when plan-B is "leave the earth".

So yeah, I just hope I'll be dead when humanity feel the brunt of it and I'll make sure I don't have kid cause that'd be just cruel.

You never know we could evolve into the dark ones. (Metro 2033 refrance) Who life fines a way. Or we wipe ourselves out like the dumbass we are.

Clive Howlitzer:
The problem with all issues like this is that people in general are extremely short sighted. If you want to fix a problem that won't affect them in their lifetime, good luck getting them to commit to it. Let alone want to PAY for it.

honestly I think its more the fact that the "eco-idiots" as I like to call them want us to stop using what we have now and switch to unproven or inefficient tech before its ready. Really the best thing to do is use what works while improving tech so we can switch over and not have too big of an increase in cost or decrease in efficiency.

RJ 17:
I understand that not every article on this site is about gaming...but most at least have some tie-in to "geek culture". Really gotta wonder what a straight-up politics article is doing here.

I think its along the lines of "Global Warming" article which the escapist been doing for years.

RJ 17:

OT: Eh, personally I kinda welcome the end of the world. I'd like to see which is more accurate: The Day After Tomorrow or Water World. :P

Neither are likely, though water world is flat out impossible due to there simply not being enough water in the world to cover such areas unless for some magical reason the earth suddenly flattens.

ecoho:

honestly I think its more the fact that the "eco-idiots" as I like to call them want us to stop using what we have now and switch to unproven or inefficient tech before its ready. Really the best thing to do is use what works while improving tech so we can switch over and not have too big of an increase in cost or decrease in efficiency.

I think the big problem is that we arent doing enough to find the tech that works and we aren't finding it fast enough. And even when we do, we arent switching fast enough because of economical factors. For example we know that hybrid cars work. yet the vast majority of cars purchased are still combustion engine online because they are cheaper.

Strazdas:

RJ 17:
I understand that not every article on this site is about gaming...but most at least have some tie-in to "geek culture". Really gotta wonder what a straight-up politics article is doing here.

I think its along the lines of "Global Warming" article which the escapist been doing for years.

RJ 17:

OT: Eh, personally I kinda welcome the end of the world. I'd like to see which is more accurate: The Day After Tomorrow or Water World. :P

Neither are likely, though water world is flat out impossible due to there simply not being enough water in the world to cover such areas unless for some magical reason the earth suddenly flattens.

ecoho:

honestly I think its more the fact that the "eco-idiots" as I like to call them want us to stop using what we have now and switch to unproven or inefficient tech before its ready. Really the best thing to do is use what works while improving tech so we can switch over and not have too big of an increase in cost or decrease in efficiency.

I think the big problem is that we arent doing enough to find the tech that works and we aren't finding it fast enough. And even when we do, we arent switching fast enough because of economical factors. For example we know that hybrid cars work. yet the vast majority of cars purchased are still combustion engine online because they are cheaper.

true but that's mostly because they guys in charge of making those decisions see only the crazy people who want us to stop making everything, hell they could probably make hybrids cost effective in about 10 years but they wont due to the fact that those "eco-idiots" I talked about would consider it a victory and then use that to justify any other means they use.

its also good to note that those people (the "eco-idiots that is) are against clean coal burning research, better fuel efficiency in cars, and anything else that may reduce how many emissions were putting up just because it still uses current fossil fuels.

Do Presidential statements of support even help a cause anymore?

It seems to me that American politics are intractably entrenched. So much so that trying to change opinions is worse than a waste of time, as it gives one's enemies a target.

What ever we do, we've better hurry up. We past the point of no return in the year

1988
2005
2007
2015
2016
2050
3000...

Well, I'm sure it's somewhere in that range.

STOP! Stop telling us, go tell china, and India, go tell the countries that are polluting so much that they have smog warnings.

America can only do so much, and when the government "does something" it only means making up useless rules, or making a new tax that just drives business away and takes jobs away from Americans.

Business will always seek profit, while consumers seek to maximize self-satisfaction.
It's literally up to government to create 'action' by making laws which make the environmental agenda also the most profitable and the most consumer satisfying.
(Typically by taxing the 'bad' alternatives to death, or flat out banning them)
Unfortunately most politicians worldwide are directly influenced by business, seek to maximize their own profits and satisfactions, and generally have the mindset of bickering school children.
So short of divine intervention we're probably boned.

President says another thing about really needing to change for the good of humanity (or americans in this case).
No change happens.
What kind of abusive relationship is this?

It's pretty bad that everytime talks of having to combat climate change are brought up, it has to always have a financial reason, to appease the deniers. How about trying to survive as a species and keep our home all nice, for visitors? Is that not enough?

Also, that Obama picture looks like he is holding an invisible Men in Black neuralyzer. Hmmm...

FogHornG36:
STOP! Stop telling us, go tell china, and India, go tell the countries that are polluting so much that they have smog warnings.

America can only do so much, and when the government "does something" it only means making up useless rules, or making a new tax that just drives business away and takes jobs away from Americans.

Well American can always improve more you know...

As for China and India... you go tell them :P...

We will be hiding in the corner watching. We wish ye luck :P

ecoho:

Clive Howlitzer:
The problem with all issues like this is that people in general are extremely short sighted. If you want to fix a problem that won't affect them in their lifetime, good luck getting them to commit to it. Let alone want to PAY for it.

honestly I think its more the fact that the "eco-idiots" as I like to call them want us to stop using what we have now and switch to unproven or inefficient tech before its ready. Really the best thing to do is use what works while improving tech so we can switch over and not have too big of an increase in cost or decrease in efficiency.

I am not disagreeing with you but it isn't exactly easy to get the funds for the R&D needed because again, short term benefit vs long term. Good luck getting taxpayer dollars. At least in the US.

RJ 17:
I understand that not every article on this site is about gaming...but most at least have some tie-in to "geek culture". Really gotta wonder what a straight-up politics article is doing here.

OT: Eh, personally I kinda welcome the end of the world. I'd like to see which is more accurate: The Day After Tomorrow or Water World. :P

Don't know much about The Day After Tomorrow, but Water World ain't particularly accurate. There isn't anywhere near the amount of water required to pull off that world on the entirety of the planet.

What really needs to be done is we need to find a way that people can pollute all they want and it won't matter because we're balancing it out in some way, anything else will only be delaying the inevitable at best and completely futile at worst. We need either a means to get the CO2 out of the air as fast as we put it in or a way to prevent the CO2 from ever getting into the air in the first place, and we need to do it without it costing much. The more the solution costs and the more it inconveniences people the less likely everybody is to actually do it, and reducing carbon emissions alone is just is never going to cut it. If history has shown anything it's that humanity will only do something about a problem if it's either really easy to do it or if the problem becomes so big we can't afford to ignore it anymore and Global Warming is just another one of those things.

While I am inclined to believe that humans have had an impact on global climate, the first things I look at in connection with any "scientific" study are (1) who performed the research; and (2) who commissioned (paid for) it. I can't place much credibility in a report produced by a government agency that has a history of overreacting (and whose continued existence pretty much relies on climate change) at the request of a liberal administration.

The only way we can support a modern society while cutting back Co2 drastically is a worldwide implementation of modern nuclear reactors. There is no other way and such a move would take dozens of years and have its own political and environmental consequences.

Solar(Foreseeable future)/Hydro/Wind power will never support our societies and any plan that involves us cutting our power use to a fraction of the current worldwide is a complete fantasy. Such a move would cripple the economy and military of any who tried it and the world isn't all 1st world countries with no uncontested borders. Far from it. Such a move would no doubt cause dozens of wars and starve thousands if not millions of people.

Even if we all started driving electric cars, the power for those cars comes straight from coal/oil plants.

So if Co2 is going to destroy humanity, it's the Eco idiots and their rabid anti nuclear rhetoric who are to blame. Not capitalism but a cult of men and women supposedly fighting to protect the earth from us and long ago stopped living in the real world.

RJ 17:

OT: Eh, personally I kinda welcome the end of the world. I'd like to see which is more accurate: The Day After Tomorrow or Water World. :P

Whatever, we can't even agree on whether climate change is a thing (politically, at least). Within one country. Never mind the numerous countries that couldn't care less, or even welcome it.

What I'm trying to say is: https://youtu.be/bUFWXpYJKaI?t=2m23s

It is 2015...

FogHornG36:
STOP! Stop telling us, go tell china, and India, go tell the countries that are polluting so much that they have smog warnings.

America can only do so much, and when the government "does something" it only means making up useless rules, or making a new tax that just drives business away and takes jobs away from Americans.

The US is equally at fault as China and India, the US refused to ratify the Kyoto agreement which calls for control of commissions.
Bush argued that unless China and other developing countries had emission control it would only harm the US economy, but it was pretty plain to see the influence by the oil and gas lobbyists.

Check this wiki : https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kyoto_Protocol

Yeah, then do it.

Yeah, you know what, US government? You do that, go take action and start working on fixing global warming. That would do far more good than you poking your finger in everyone else's pies.

Bah, controlling Global Warming? That's just code for UN commissars telling us Americans what temperature it's gonna be in OUR outdoors. I say let the world warm up; see what Buchos-Buchos Gali-Gali thinks about that. We'll grow oranges in Alaska.

How the heck is he gonna get the other nations on board with this? Bribe? Coerce? Ask nicely? Also we don't have the money. Literally.
(Nobody really seems to give a [email protected]% about the national debt though)

All of our problems would be solved if we could find a way to produce viable fusion power. It's pie-in-the-sky, but better than ignoring the problems involved in the use of fossil fuels or nuclear power, or sinking more and more funds into researching renewable for little actual gain.

09philj:
All of our problems would be solved if we could find a way to produce viable fusion power. It's pie-in-the-sky, but better than ignoring the problems involved in the use of fossil fuels or nuclear power, or sinking more and more funds into researching renewable for little actual gain.

There are a dozen projects to produce exactly that.
Solar power is worth researching as well. today I think it's like 12% efficient, which means we could triple its effectiveness.
Also modern nuclear reactors are much safer and produce less/safer waste than most people imagine.

nextbigfuture.com is your friend for articles on the bleeding edge of tech, including fusion projects.

RJ 17:
I understand that not every article on this site is about gaming...but most at least have some tie-in to "geek culture". Really gotta wonder what a straight-up politics article is doing here.

OT: Eh, personally I kinda welcome the end of the world. I'd like to see which is more accurate: The Day After Tomorrow or Water World. :P

To be fair, it's not politics--it's science! It just happens to be coming out of a politician's mouth. And there have been plenty of straight up science articles on this site, yo! There used to be a whole column devoted to science, as I recall. Lauren... Lauren something. Or... something Lauren did them. Or maybe not.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here