Certainly you cannot support your theory that the "cost of the cure" is worse than the cost of the disease, as the countries involved aren't reflecting any slowdown.
My original question wasn't so much the growth/decline of economies as much as the estimated out right cost of MMGW prevention vs the cost of doing nothing. For the sake of argument lets say that emissions compliant countries are not generally facing economic slow downs. What I'd really like to know is the cost of compliance vs the cost of doing nothing and dealing with significant sea level rise. No net negative affect of compliance on an economy is certainly good, but does it pay for cost of compliance and how does this compare to the cost of simply letting sea levels rise, assuming we can even stop it in the first place.
Whatever the cost is, a lot of it is capital expenditure and infrastructure. You are getting a modern electricity generation system for your money, for example. Current infrastructure is not going to last forever. It is not wasted expenditure such as for example certain wars are.
Perhaps that explains some of the GDP gains from some of the countries that have exceeded their Kyoto goals.
Nice visualization of the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k7jvP7BqVi4&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k7jvP7BqVi4&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Notice the seasonal peaks in the northern hemisphere. Pretty clear where it is coming from. There are other excellent ones here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Visual-depictions-of-CO2-levels-and-CO2-emissions.html
World's top firms cause $2.2tn of environmental damage, report estimates "Report for the UN into the activities of the world's 3,000 biggest companies estimates one-third of profits would be lost if firms were forced to pay for use, loss and damage of environment" http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/18/worlds-top-firms-environmental-damage While figures like these will always be somewhat uncertain, there really is no doubt that large companies do not pay up in full for the environmental damage they cause. The principle of no such thing as a free lunch generally holds and somebody pays up. In this case the costs of environmental damage are socialized while the profits remain private. Interesting that the figure is in the same ballpark as estimates of the costs to limit CO2 emissions.
Highspeed cable? When emissions regulations are introduced the cities will be burned to the ground, your house will be destroyed, your family will be dead and you'll only get Comcast. Yes, that's right, Comcast.
When you post maps like that - to be taken seriously you should post the appropriate disclaimers. I clicked on it and immediately saw that the map was only comparing it to 1950 to 1980. (the were speculating about the coming ice age during the 70s.) Next question is - how was the data collected and smoothed. The crooked scientists running the show have made all thinking persons suspicious of all this data. But - I do like the fact you all are finally making arguments that make sense. The population should not be privatising the costs of industry unless the public as a whole receives a useful benefit from it. If a ship builder is polluting or has polluted san diego bay, but the builder is also employing quite a few people - what is the job of the govt and the courts to step in. What if someone else wants to come in and employ people but would dredge up metals that may be better left on the bottom. Now you get in to Environmental Impact Reports and political corruption in just about every level of the system... I saw. I know this as a person who at one point was an environmental plaintiffs lawyer. I filed and argued a suit on this subject. I worked for with "loonies" like you gw guys. All sides (and even some of the judges) were as corrupt as could be -- in general. It was hard to find pure plaintiffs. (I did work for one- for free. But it was sad because we were so under financed. ) The environmental groups with the money were rotted from the core by liberal politics and almost could care less about the issues. Obviously the polluters side was not any better. Its why you cant trust cap and trade of the government... The power players on both sides are completely corrupt.