Clean Air?

On Wednesday, a blog called CitizenSugar pointed out that Al Gore blamed the Burma cyclone on . . . global warming.  Big surprise, that.

As the writer of the blog states [links original]:

if he truly believes that we must address climate change to stop such disasters and save future lives, doesn't he have an obligation to speak up? If he is wrong about global warming, what harm is there in taking better care of the planet anyways?

If Al Gore is wrong about global warming (and probably is) what harm is there in "taking better care of the planet"?  We're talking about removing CO₂ (carbon dioxide) from the air.  Unless CO₂ causes global warming it is harmless.  And air without CO₂ is not "clean," it's sterile.  There would be no life on earth without carbon dioxide in the air.  Removing CO₂ is not "taking better care of the planet."

And what's the harm?  The damage to the economy would be tremendous as I pointed out earlier the results of the Lieberman-Warner bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (mostly CO₂):

• Gross Domestic Product (GDP) losses of between $150 and $210 billion by 2020 and $663 to $669 billion by 2030;
• Employment losses of 1.2 to 1.8 million in 2020 and 3 to 4 million in 2030;
• Household income losses of $739 to $2,927 per year by 2020 and $4,022 to $6,752 a year by 2030;
• Electricity rate increases of 28% to 33% by 2020 and 101% to 129% by 2020; and,
• Gasoline price increases (per gallon) of 20% to 69% by 2020 and 77% to 145% by 2030.

"Stopping" global warming will not be free.  It will be very expensive.  Just like all government regulations.

And that's the harm in "taking better care of the planet" by reducing CO₂ emissions.