<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Talking point: Global warming and economic growth]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by Warren</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/talking-point-global-warming-and-economic-growth/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2006 09:25:32 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/talking-point-global-warming-and-economic-growth/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Global warming is starting to hurt the economy<p>Global climate change and global warming is starting to have a negative impact on the economy. Why not start with those observations--at least $1 billion crops lost in recent "super" California heat wave, along with hundreds of millions of dollars lost in livestock, chicken and milk production. Tally the economic costs of blackouts--scores of lives lost nationwide, other health care costs as a result of past two weeks' US heat waves.<p>
These heat waves--particularly California's all-time record highs over many days across most of the state--are perhaps the first that can be conclusively attributed to global warming, so they should be part of a large case study. Katrina's and other hurricane impacts, which may form without global climate change--are too hard to link conclusively. <p>
Read more at: <a href="http://www.warrenkarlenzig.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.warrenkarlenzig.com</a></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Global warming is starting to hurt the economy<p>Global climate change and global warming is starting to have a negative impact on the economy. Why not start with those observations--at least $1 billion crops lost in recent "super" California heat wave, along with hundreds of millions of dollars lost in livestock, chicken and milk production. Tally the economic costs of blackouts--scores of lives lost nationwide, other health care costs as a result of past two weeks' US heat waves.<p>
These heat waves--particularly California's all-time record highs over many days across most of the state--are perhaps the first that can be conclusively attributed to global warming, so they should be part of a large case study. Katrina's and other hurricane impacts, which may form without global climate change--are too hard to link conclusively. <p>
Read more at: <a href="http://www.warrenkarlenzig.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.warrenkarlenzig.com</a></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by picassotrigger</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/talking-point-global-warming-and-economic-growth/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:53:28 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/talking-point-global-warming-and-economic-growth/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Economic winners and losers</strong></p><p>Your argument is well reasoned. I would add that, even among those who believe that transitioning to a green, fossil-fuel-free economy will not impoverish the world, there is an understanding that that there will be winners and losers in the process, and that most of the political resistance will come from those who have invested heavily in the fossil fuel economy.</p><p>
I would speculate that investments in plant and equipment are not a major issue because they are eventually depreciated and written off over time, but speculative investments made in the acquisition of real estate with coal deposits or oil/gas fields are probably more of an impediment to change. After all, if the coal/oil/gas in the ground can't be extracted and sold, a property might have to be sold at a small fraction of its original purchase price.</p><p>
I have no facts to support my thesis, but it would be interesting to get some feedback from someone who understands the balance sheet of a fossil fuel company.<br>
</br></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Economic winners and losers</strong></p><p>Your argument is well reasoned. I would add that, even among those who believe that transitioning to a green, fossil-fuel-free economy will not impoverish the world, there is an understanding that that there will be winners and losers in the process, and that most of the political resistance will come from those who have invested heavily in the fossil fuel economy.</p><p>
I would speculate that investments in plant and equipment are not a major issue because they are eventually depreciated and written off over time, but speculative investments made in the acquisition of real estate with coal deposits or oil/gas fields are probably more of an impediment to change. After all, if the coal/oil/gas in the ground can't be extracted and sold, a property might have to be sold at a small fraction of its original purchase price.</p><p>
I have no facts to support my thesis, but it would be interesting to get some feedback from someone who understands the balance sheet of a fossil fuel company.<br>
</br></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>