Climate change could bankrupt the global economy in 65 years

[phantom power]

A recent study by Swiss Reinsurance, one of the world's largest insurance companies, estimates that global losses as a result of climate change will run around $150 billion a year by the end of the decade. The largest property reinsurance company in Britain projects that, unchecked, the effects of climate change could bankrupt the global economy in 65 years. Even in a $3.5-trillion economy such as ours, the effects of a single storm are already evident.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091605F.shtml

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Just think if Exxon bought up solar panel co.'s instead of buying out!

[pitohui]

2. by "economy" they mean "insurance industry"

which is perfectly understandable since they are insurers

it is sad to say, but climate losses & disasters are actually a spur to other parts of the economy such as construction

[phantom power]

5. it only spurs construction if people can pay for it.

A few more consecutive years of this, and Insurance companies simply won't be able to insure anybody within a certain distance of the Gulf coast. Then what?

And, they aren't just thinking about hurricanes. It's going to be tornados all over the great plains, and the east coast. It's going to be flash-flooding from massive rainstorms. It's going to be drought in the southwest.

Nobody gets off. Saddle up the tiger.

[dcfirefighter]

6. Natural disasters, like war, destroy wealth

No matter how you cut it. They take something that was worth something, and make it worth less.

You really want to spur the economy take taxes off of labor:
stop charging a payroll tax, so everyone gets a 7.65% raise, labor becomes 7.65% cheaper, more people become employed, labor become scarcer, and wages and working conditions improve.
stop charging an income tax on the first $150,000 of income, for the same reason
stop charging sales taxes, so our paychecks go further, more things are purchased, and more people are employed making, transporting, and selling those things.
stop charging a tax on buildings, so buildings become cheaper, more people are employed contructing them, more businesses have a chance of opening in a good location, and more housing is available.
stop charging taxes on machines, factories, shipyards, etc - so more folks are employed building them, and working them.

On the other hand, start
Charging people for the right to pollute our air, and our water, and our earth. This would make oil and coal more expensive - which would make it economic to employ people building alternative energy sources. It would also tend to benefit local production vs. global economy of scale, which would employ more people.
Also start charging people for the right to exclude others from natural resources - ground water, surface area, mineral ores, oil deposits, spectrum bandwidth, and others. As these become relatively more expensive to hold on to, their use must be economized, leaving more left for others while encouraging producers to substitute labor and capital for natural resources.

[bullimiami]

3. barring medical breakthroughs or reincarnation I expect to be dead.

still, seems pretty greedy of us not to spend a little effort to make a better world for those who will be here.

[applegrove]

4. We will only live to 45 anyway - with all the polution.