A sick planet equates a sick economy.

Hello everyone. Today I was out driving my
car and it was twilight. I began thinking to myself. "Is it possible
to have a strong Economy on a sick planet"?

Say for instance hypothetically speaking that what Gore and his team of
scientists are saying about Global Climate Change is true. In that
case all the rest of it is true too. The fact that even a 1 to 2
degree change in our usual temperature patters can devastate whole crop
yields. In other words, if the planet is sick that would mean serious
devastation to crops around the globe that become damaged. Sure the
insurance would pay for it. But only up to a certain extent. For
instance. After Hurricane Katrina home insurance companies had to pay
up billions and billions of dollars worth of insurance claims. Most of
it still hasn't been paid as the insurance companies ended up becoming
bankrupt. This is one example of how insurance doesn't always work.
And when it does work, the money they pay up might not be enough. One
family only got back enough money for a new roof, but not enough for a
whole new house that they needed.

So if crops do become damaged and unsellable because of global climate
change. Than this would be one clear example of how a sick planet
would equate for us a sick economy.

But how might it be you ask that a sick planet would only have a sick
economy. Can't we improvise?

I'm sure to a small extent we can get by through technological knowhow.
You might have multi billionaires investing billions of their dollars
to zone off large tracts of land as green belts. They would pay
thousands upon thousands of workers to plant several thousand trees to
bring back the rain forests.

Whole regions of the world would come together to improvise. For
example NYC, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Maryland might get together
to fund a DOME project. To pay for a DOME that would be made of some
type of synthetic material still unknown to man yet that will COVER
that ENTIRE region of the Earth. Allowing Several billion of it's
residents to breath freely and live life in modern comfort in a
controlled environment. 77 Degrees year round. No snow, no pollution.
Only electric and fuel cell cars allowed inside the dome. Airplanes
would have to land outside the Dome and passengers brought in and out
through a high speed subway system not in place yet.

Say for example the first Domed cities in America are located in what
is now today farm country. Say the farmers came together to dome
thousands of square miles in order to grow their crops in a controlled
environment since they simply will not grow anymore due to global
climate change and all the air pollution. Say it was later discovered
that the land inside the Dome would be more profitable for residential
and commercial projects where some of the first people in the future
can live their lives in luxury in a completely controlled environment.
So the cities took over and kicked the farmers out.

What other examples of signs of a crippled economy due to a sick planet
besides loss in crop production. Well there's also the train reaction.
The lost crops mean less money for the growers. The growers can than
no longer spend money to pay for other stuff so other businesses loose
money since nobody is buying their goods. Also of course the price of
food goes up. If the price of food goes up everyone that needs to eat
will have less money to spend on entertainment and a bunch of other
stuff they would have spent with their money. those other businesses
that have lost profit then have even less money to pay for extra
luxuries and would have to cut back even more. It's an endless vicious
cycle. And many will suffer both directly and indirectly. Restaurants
would be devastated. With food being so expensive people will try to
find all sorts of ways to spend less on it. Going out to eat would be
thought of as a big waste of money. Think $99 for each person to eat
not including drinks and desert. Prime rib would be $60 an ounce. So
the whole Hospitality/Restaurant section of the economy takes a huge
nose dive.

Where else does a sick planet hurt the economy? Well maybe more people
will begin to take notice of all the chaos and they would start tossing
their money in a bank account instead of investing it or otherwise
spending it on stuff they thought they might have enjoyed. So right
there is the whole psychological affect of it.

Oh and there's got to be more. On a sick planet, won't less people be
willing to leave their house because it's too uncomfortably hot in the
summer? Christ, in Texas it can get upwards of 107 degrees some days
in San Antonio. What if due to global climate change San Antonio a
city of 3 million experiences temperatures of 115+ degrees 14 days of
the summer with high humidity? Who would want to leave the comforts of
their air conditioned house if they don't have to really go out and
sweat it? Less people out and about in a city means less money
circulating around. Susan wouldn't have gone to Starbucks. Mike
wouldn't have gone to Circuit city. James would have taken his family
to the amusement park but because of the high temperatures the park
closed it's doors until further notice. And on and on and on it goes.
Now imagine that the problem was multiplied by 1,000 including the rest
of the planet factored in?

Think 104 degrees in Los Angeles! When it normally never gets hotter
than 89 degrees. Not everyone has air conditioning in that city. Many
will die of a heat stroke. And less people alive means less goods and
produce consumed and less money exchanged. Directly affecting the
economy.

Not to mention all the plants and animals that became extinct because
they could not adapt to the Earth's changing climate.

Isn't anybody worried here? I sure am. If what Gore is saying is
true. I'm sure the above would happen at least to some type of extent.
All of this would take place within our lifetimes. Up to a certain
extent of course.

East-

wrote:
> Hello everyone. Today I was out driving my
> car and it was twilight. I began thinking to myself. "Is it possible
> to have a strong Economy on a sick planet"?
>
<snip>
> The fact that even a 1 to 2
> degree change in our usual temperature patters can devastate whole crop
> yields. In other words, if the planet is sick that would mean serious
> devastation to crops around the globe that become damaged. Sure the
> insurance would pay for it. But only up to a certain extent.
<snip>
>
> So if crops do become damaged and unsellable because of global climate
> change. Than this would be one clear example of how a sick planet
> would equate for us a sick economy.

Don't worry about it. If the crops fail, then the surplus population
will starve to death. Then the economy will be restored to
equilibrium. It is what Adam Smith called "the invisible hand."

<snip>
>
> Oh and there's got to be more. On a sick planet, won't less people be
> willing to leave their house because it's too uncomfortably hot in the
> summer? Christ, in Texas it can get upwards of 107 degrees some days
> in San Antonio. What if due to global climate change San Antonio a
> city of 3 million experiences temperatures of 115+ degrees 14 days of
> the summer with high humidity? Who would want to leave the comforts of
> their air conditioned house if they don't have to really go out and
> sweat it?

God, you are negative. Think positive. There are lots of hot girls in
bikinis in Rio. If the temperature rises just a few degrees, these
hotties will have no choice but to take it all off. That is why I am
driving my SUV all the way to Rio.

> Less people out and about in a city means less money
> circulating around. Susan wouldn't have gone to Starbucks. Mike
> wouldn't have gone to Circuit city. James would have taken his family
> to the amusement park but because of the high temperatures the park
> closed it's doors until further notice. And on and on and on it goes.
> Now imagine that the problem was multiplied by 1,000 including the rest
> of the planet factored in?
>
> Think 104 degrees in Los Angeles! When it normally never gets hotter
> than 89 degrees. Not everyone has air conditioning in that city. Many
> will die of a heat stroke. And less people alive means less goods and
> produce consumed and less money exchanged. Directly affecting the
> economy.

Dead people consume funeral services. This stimulates the economy.

>
> Not to mention all the plants and animals that became extinct because
> they could not adapt to the Earth's changing climate.
>
> Isn't anybody worried here? I sure am. If what Gore is saying is
> true. I'm sure the above would happen at least to some type of extent.
> All of this would take place within our lifetimes. Up to a certain
> extent of course.
>
> East-

> wrote

> Say for instance hypothetically speaking that what Gore and his team of
> scientists are saying about Global Climate Change is true.

It's like a room full of typewriters and monkeys. Eventually ............


Well, AlGore finally said something relevant.

He's right.

He's hitching his wagon to this star, never really coming up with the idea
on his own, yet, if he, as a public figure, can draw some attention to this,
it is a good thing.

Our BIGGEST PROBLEM over the next fifty years is global warming. I was
pessimistic, but the info is in. Warmer temps. The last 15 years have set
high temp records everywhere.

AND THE CLINCHER, armadillos are moving northward. Something they could not
do if the weather was not getting warmer. So, even with all the shrieking
and hand wringing, and Hollywood neurotics wailing, we do have some real
proof that this is happening.

I won't be here long enough to see it, but I fear for my children and those
left.

Bad part is, that a lot of the causes are poverty and ignorance, and there
is little chance of fixing that in the countries that welcome industry, and
who are cutting down trees at a lethal rate.

Steve

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:37:32 -0800, "Steve B" >
wrote:

>Our BIGGEST PROBLEM over the next fifty years is global warming. I was
>pessimistic, but the info is in. Warmer temps. The last 15 years have set
>high temp records everywhere.

****ing moron.

15 years ago Time and other magazines were running headlines about
global cooling being the biggest problem over the next 50 years.

Read my lips - the media is all about entertainment now, not news. If
you hear it on cnn you can be sure it is false.

"DTJ" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:37:32 -0800, "Steve B" >
> wrote:
>
>>Our BIGGEST PROBLEM over the next fifty years is global warming. I was
>>pessimistic, but the info is in. Warmer temps. The last 15 years have
>>set
>>high temp records everywhere.
>
> ****ing moron.
>
> 15 years ago Time and other magazines were running headlines about
> global cooling being the biggest problem over the next 50 years.
>
> Read my lips - the media is all about entertainment now, not news. If
> you hear it on cnn you can be sure it is false.

READ MY LIPS ...............

I didn't say that you needed to absolutely believe everything I wrote. I
was just stating my opinion.

History and time will prove who is right and who is wrong. I can now
emphatically state that perhaps I will be proven wrong over the course of
time and history.

You, on the other hand, cannot make such a statement.

If you are so smart, why are you referring to 15 year old articles about
global cooling when the current topic is global WARMING? And CNN is in
upper case letters.

Read my lips ........ PPPPFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTT!

Be gone.

Steve