Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
|
is the section of the report you are referring to?
Quote:
|
S. 2191 increases the cost of using energy, which reduces real economic output, reduces purchasing power, and lowers aggregate demand for goods and services. The result is that projected real gross domestic product (GDP) generally falls relative to the Reference Case. Adverse economic impacts generally increase over time as higher cost emissions abatement options are required as emissions caps become more stringent while population and economic activity levels continue to grow. Total discounted GDP losses over the 2009 to 2030 time period range from $444 billion (-0.2 percent) to $1,308 billion (-0.6 percent) across the S. 2191 cases (Table ES3). Similarly, the cumulative discounted losses for personal consumption range from $546 billion (-0.2 percent) to $1,425 billion (-0.6 percent). GDP losses in 2030, the last year explicitly modeled in this analysis, range from $27 billion to $163 billion (-0.1 to -0.8 percent) while consumption losses in that year range from $58 billion to $149 billion (-0.4 to -1.1 percent). Economic impacts are largest when it is assumed that key low-emissions technologies including nuclear, fossil with CCS, and various renewables are not developed and deployed in a timeframe consistent with the emissions reduction requirements and international offsets are not available.
|
gdp losses over a 21 year period as low as 2/10 of a percent? and 6/10 if nothing is "developed and deployed" in response?
my expectation is there will be new developments. that is what america has done successfully, and america will do in response to the change in how we are consuming/using these energy sources. have you lost faith in american ingenuity and innovation?
these numbers make the decision to invest easy. yes to greenhouse gas reduction.
last, this study doesn't discuss the costs of doing nothing, those numbers could be many times those above.