Reply To: Bill Gates

[Rezwan]

JimmyT wrote: This whole global warming argument certainly reminds me of the hubub over CFC’s and how they were going to ruin the ozone layer. The “enviromental” lobby forced their will on US business and US people in the form of legislation which cost consumers billions and billions of dollars.

You sound so victimized. Relax. Bjorn Lomborg, in his book The skeptical environmentalist page 274:

The case of the depleted ozone layer and the solution through restrictive protocols is seen as a success story, in which the world community finally pulled itself together and put the environment before money. … However, it is worth pointing out that the implementation of the CFC ban was strictly profitable. It was actually relatively cheap to find substitutes for CFC (e.g., in refrigerators and spray cans) and at the same time the advantages were quite clear-cut.

In a report for Environment Canada, the Canadian EPA, it was estimated that the overall global cost until 2060 of the implementation of the CFC protocols was about 235 billion 1997 US dollars. By way of comparison, the overall advantage, stemming from avoided damages to fisheries, agriculture and outdoor materials was estimated to amount to some 459 billion 1997 US dollars, not even including about 333,500 fewer skin cancer deaths.

However, these are global figures accumulated over the next 63 years, which because of both the long time and the number of people easily get very large.

E.g., average consumer cost is just a few cents. And benefit is more. And now you get double paper cups at Starbucks instead of styrofoam. Cry me a river.