These greenhouse gases, in large part, emanate from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels and the changes in the ways that land is used.
But what does this have to do with business Consider the economic costs of the chaotic weather patterns that have broadened in scale over the past decades. Patterns of floods and drought that have devastated local areas have increased in their extremity. The severity and frequency of hurricanes and tornadoes, as well as in more mundane thunderstorms, have also increased. This can be attributed to the increase in global temperatures, and so one can see that increased production of greenhouse gases can have a lasting effect on business - particularly as those who owned businesses in Florida before it was hit by Hurricane Andrew, or in New Orleans before it was hit by Hurricane Katrina, can attest.
The focus of this paper will be to measure the specific effects of climate change on the global economy. In other words, how will the current trend of climate change affect the world's productivity if it does not go unchecked Can the world accept President Bush's laissez-faire approach to climate control, or does the global economy demand more specific solutions
Literature Search. Literature Search. I located five articles that represent a cross-section of the spectrum of thought about the ways that global climate change will affect the world's economy. Jennifer G. Hickey's essay entitled "Flaky climate data will cost U.S. dough - economic costs of global warming treaty" represents the side of the skeptics - those who feel that the science behind the idea that human activity has generated greenhouse gases that are causing higher global temperatures to be a fallacy. These skeptics generally tend to fall in the politically conservative ranks, and they see no reason for government to intervene in the affairs of business on the basis of iffy science. Implementing such measures as the Kyoto emissions treaty would have economic effects that are more easily measured and verified, in the writer's opinion, than the less tangible benefits of reduced emissions. One of the counterarguments that this essay puts forth in response to the call for reduced emissions is the idea that, between 1940 and 1970, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased dramatically, and yet the global temperature fell during that time frame (Hickey). This article goes through several economic projections of the financial effects of the Kyoto treaty on the American economy, which the Clinton Administration signed, but never sent to the Senate for formal ratification. Of interest is the fact that this article was written in 1997. During the intervening years, such writing as this has declined in the mainstream press, becoming relegated more and more to right-wing publications. It is still an argument that has its strong adherents, though, and would be an obstacle to implementing large-scale environmental regulations unless there were ironclad proof that greenhouse gas emissions directly caused global warming, and that global warming was certain to harm the economy in the future.
Next, I found two sources by William D. Nordhaus. One is a brief analysis of the economic and environmental effects of the