On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Maureen wrote: > > Who is the "we" in your statements? Exactly who is proposing to spend > "trillions of dollars"? I haven't seen any legislation or regulations > that would result in that kind of expenditure. Nor have I seen any > claims to the results you are stating. > You have links? >
Vague numbers from 1-5% of global output are mentioned in the Economist this week if you pick up a copy. It has global warming on the cover. 1% is the low number, but that would still be more than $100 billion a year for the US - probably a lot more since we are the ones creating a lot of the CO2. The NYTimes says trillions right here. $10 trillion just in the next two decades. Just in infrastructure. Who are they kidding? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/science/earth/09cost.html The short answer is trillions of dollars over the next few decades. It is a significant sum but a relatively small fraction of the worlds total economic output. In energy infrastructure alone, the transformational ambitions that delegates to the United Nations<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org> climate change conference<http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_nations_framework_convention_on_climate_change/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>are expected to set in the coming days will cost more than $10 trillion in additional investment from 2010 to 2030, according to a new estimate from the International Energy Agency. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:309262 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
