I'm not talking about the subject of their post "$350 billion for 350 ppm" although even Sir Nicholas Stern would beg to differ (and he's still lowballing). From:
Sir Nicholas Stern: Cost of Carbon Biz Has Doubed to 2% of World Economy
World GDP estimates:
No it hasn't.
Sir Nick was low balling the cost of his proposals last year.
On May 31, 2007 we wrote:...we're starting to get to the real number and we should be able to keep it all under a third-of-a-trillion dollars per year for the U.S. contribution (before adding in direct costs like putting vodka in your tank but that's okay, the Stern number of 1% of World Gross Product should be 2% minimum so we've got incorrect estimates piling on incorrect estimates anyway).
I don't know why he was having fun with numbers but he was. If a humble blogger can work the abacus I'm pretty sure Stern knew.
If he didn't, here's a headline from the Times of India, September 25, 2007:Cost of dealing with climate change: 2% of GDP
By either measure the cost is over a Tril., with the bulk expected to come from the people in the Western countries.
GDP (purchasing power parity ):
GWP (gross world product): $65.61 trillion (2007 est.)
GDP (official exchange rate):
GWP (gross world product): $54.62 trillion (2007 est.)
No, the bit I'm talking about is this:
"...The above was written by Ross Gelbpsan, “a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and a leading voice in the struggle for a clean energy future. His books on global warming include The Heat is On and Boiling Point.”..."
Good grief. A couple dozen keystrokes gets you to:
Your search yielded no results
- Check if your spelling is correct.
- Remove quotes around phrases to match each word individually: "blue smurf" will match less than blue smurf.
- Consider loosening your query with OR: blue smurf will match less than blue OR smurf.