It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Finally the world is taking it seriously

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 08:10 AM

Warming 'could bring 1930s havoc'

LONDON, England -- Climate change will devastate the global economy on a scale of the two world wars and the depression of the 1930s if left unchecked, a top economist has warned.

Introducing the report by Nicholas Stern, the British government also said Monday that former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, who is now a vocal environmental advocate, is to serve as its adviser on the issue.

The report's main argument is that the benefits of coordinated action around the world to tackle global warming will greatly outweigh any financial costs.

Read full story on CNN

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page): MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

[edit on 30/10/2006 by Umbrax]

posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 08:29 AM
I'm much more worried about the ecological disaster it will cause to this planet than an economic one. Let's hope this warning can be a wake-up call to those responsible for all this pollution and control their greed, global warming/climate change can haunt them in their lifetime.

Denial of global warming/climate change due to industrial pollution is one of the most idiotic things I have heard. So much for billions in quarterly revenue. The future generations will remember us for all the mess we left for them to clean up.

posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 12:41 PM
yes the ecological and environmental impacts of global warming are the things to be worried about, not the economical. Lets face it, if some of the more dire predictions of it are right then money will be the least of anyones worries.

posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 07:23 PM

Originally posted by apex
yes the ecological and environmental impacts of global warming are the things to be worried about, not the economical. Lets face it, if some of the more dire predictions of it are right then money will be the least of anyones worries.

The Grapes of Wrath Redux

Climate change, dwindling resources, over consumption, pollution, over population, faltering economies, regional wars are all tied together.

You don't need a crystal ball prediction to know that economic collapse = no job, money or food for you. Farmers, food distributers and food producers don't operate on negative returns or they won't be in business. So when you're starving, then you can tell me how hunger from a lack of money is not your primary worry.

Africa is giving us all a preview on how it may evolve for the rest of the world
ATS - Up in Smoke, the African Apocalypse

The economy tanking is a major tipping point and don't plan on the leaders or the government to save any poor, jobless, hungry butts that failed to prioritize and stock up on the basics for survival. It will be every man for himself in a dog eat dog world of economic chaos and there will be little headway or projects in regards to climate change, when many are just struggling to survive.

[edit on 30-10-2006 by Regenmacher]

posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 07:31 PM

Originally posted by rai76
Warming 'could bring 1930s havoc'

LONDON, England -- Climate change will devastate the global economy on a scale of the two world wars and the depression of the 1930s if left unchecked, a top economist has warned.

I read, on the same subject, that this = 7 trillions $ or 7000 Billions of $, quite a price tag.

The rest of the world, (China - India, etc.) will not be able to consume resources, like we did in the 1950's, and 60's (like there was no tomorrow). And it will be hypocrit to tell them that they cannot do, like we did.

In every thing, we consume, the cost of getting rid of it (or recycling it) should be included up front. This way, some of the thing we take for granted, will not be viable economically (and possibly not introduce, in the first place, since they are not a real breakthrough).

In the USA, a big chunck of the petrol use, is for transportation. Moving goods by train is 3 to 10 times for efficient than moving it by 18 wheeler, and moving it by water is even more energy efficient. So instead of warehouse on wheel (just in time), perhaps we can return to local warehouse.

There are lot of thing, that we need to rethink. What could be done by moving electrons in a wire, instead of physically producing it, we should do. No point in writing a software, printing a CD (or DVD), an introduction manual, putting that in a truck, installing it, rather then just downloading it. Same for music. And we should develop a good electronic newspaper and get rid of printed paper, all together.

There is a lot of thing, that need to be rethink, how we consume, how we work, etc.

posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 07:38 PM
The government loves to suppress news that is not in their best interest. If they're letting this one out of the bag so easily... maybe it's only to mislead us.

posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 08:21 PM
Big money is has been ready to reap big gains from a market collapse years ago and is in position to put the screws to all those who failed to prepare. This CNN cat out of bag is way behind the curve.

Another Great Depression? August 2, 2004

Two Great Depressions - One Lifetime August 24, 2004

Economic `Armageddon' predicted 1November 23, 2004

posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 11:34 PM
IMHO the social costs of rapid global warming will far outweigh the economic costs. Not that economic costs won't be substantial, because they clearly will; however, droughts and floods and rising sea levels could end up displacing over a billion people from their current home areas. Where will such people go? Further, the severe strains that could be placed on available fresh water may mean food production (which is already less that the world needs) will be reduced past some acceptable point in much of the third world. Will the rest of the world be willing to help when they themselves have a declining harvest?

I would like to think the world will pull together to assist one another and mitigate the effects of global warming as much as possible, but history does not offer many examples of such unified action happening. Although global warming is happening quicker than first predicted, it will still take a decade or so for many of the currently predicted changes to happen. Perhaps that will be enough time for us to learn how to cope.

posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 01:53 AM
What I meant was that if global warming got really bad, with the changes in environment, everyone may be facing a situation like there was in the aftermath of Katrina. If society were to breakdown to that sort of extent, then I don't really see how your money will be of any use to anyone. From one thing I heard, the Gulf stream will shut off and northern Britain will have an ice age as well as the world being warmer. In those sorts of conditions how exactly will money really be useful? From reading about the aftermath of WW1 in Germany they had an economic crisis and people had to use wheelbarrows to move their money around to buy things. How is money so useful in an Environmental crisis then?

posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 09:47 AM
Yesterday I saw the movie "An Inconvinient truth". I was really impressed. Al Gore was explaning it really cleary. I reconment everyone to see the movie. He told it with a few laughs here and there and that made if very easy to watch. It was a good decision to do it in that way, it makes it very easy for people to understand the issue and to aknowledge the problem.

When I saw the little part about what could happen to the Netherlands, I was shocked. I already heard earlier about the possible flood treaths in the future, but never emagined how it would look like, really scarry.

The only thing I thought in the end....are we really capable to stop it and not let it come that far....or is it still a matter of time?

[edit on 1/11/2006 by rai76]

posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 05:01 PM
Frankly i feel we are headed towards what may be the fastest reduction in a species in history. We are in a position where population growth is actually killing us and combined with global warming, severe droughts, storms and other natural disasters mankind and mother nature is in for a rough ride over the next 20 years.

Australia, my home is undergoing its worst drought, many areas are close to being with out water, some already are. Crops are failing and about the only viable area to farm is up north where tropical downpours would destroy crops just as well.

I feel we (planet earth) need to forget about the economics of reducing polution, loss of jobs etc and work out a plan to save the planet and all its inhabitants. If as the Australian and American governments seem to insist that jobs are worth more than the planet view persists, well frankly i feel we are stuffed.

People are going to die no matter what, how many and how many countries/cities cease to excist depends on what we do know not what we do in ten years.

top topics


log in