Climate Change - convince me that this is really a big Net negative

[Rod]

"The UN report on climate change, which commissioned the leading scientists to research this, concluded that the damage cost of climate change will be perhaps 2% of world GDP -- 100 years from now, whereas climate policies can end up costing something more than 11% of GDP.

 

2% is the size of a minor recession...and that is worst case...100 years from now.

 

Are you sure that you've captured all the damages the world would suffer if temperatures rose, say 3 degrees Celsius? Or are even in the ballpark?

[SharperDingaan]

"The UN report on climate change, which commissioned the leading scientists to research this, concluded that the damage cost of climate change will be perhaps 2% of world GDP -- 100 years from now, whereas climate policies can end up costing something more than 11% of GDP.

 

2% is the size of a minor recession...and that is worst case...100 years from now.

 

Are you sure that you've captured all the damages the world would suffer if temperatures rose, say 3 degrees Celsius? Or are even in the ballpark?

 

Doesn't include the cost of flood protecting some of the worlds major cities. Screws up the numbers too much  ;)

Miami, New Orleans, New York, Boston, Mumbai, Guangzhao, Shenzhen  https://www.thoughtco.com/global-warming-most-vulnerable-cities-1203883

 

Venice is already sunk .. so not on the list!

 

SD

[zurgenfeldt]

"The UN report on climate change, which commissioned the leading scientists to research this, concluded that the damage cost of climate change will be perhaps 2% of world GDP -- 100 years from now, whereas climate policies can end up costing something more than 11% of GDP.

 

2% is the size of a minor recession...and that is worst case...100 years from now.

 

Are you sure that you've captured all the damages the world would suffer if temperatures rose, say 3 degrees Celsius? Or are even in the ballpark?

 

Admittedly, I'm relying on the UN scientist report, so I'm not trying to calculate all damage -- that's in my too hard box.

 

Per the 2018 IPCC report, released every few years by the UN, the total damage was estimated between .2% and 2% I believe. and that was like 60 or 100 years out. So, 2% of global GDP was the worst-case scenario.

 

[Castanza]

"The UN report on climate change, which commissioned the leading scientists to research this, concluded that the damage cost of climate change will be perhaps 2% of world GDP -- 100 years from now, whereas climate policies can end up costing something more than 11% of GDP.

 

2% is the size of a minor recession...and that is worst case...100 years from now.

 

Are you sure that you've captured all the damages the world would suffer if temperatures rose, say 3 degrees Celsius? Or are even in the ballpark?

 

If you're questioning the percentage given by UN scientists for damage costs then why not question them on their thesis to begin with?

[Rod]

"The UN report on climate change, which commissioned the leading scientists to research this, concluded that the damage cost of climate change will be perhaps 2% of world GDP -- 100 years from now, whereas climate policies can end up costing something more than 11% of GDP.

 

2% is the size of a minor recession...and that is worst case...100 years from now.

 

Are you sure that you've captured all the damages the world would suffer if temperatures rose, say 3 degrees Celsius? Or are even in the ballpark?

 

Admittedly, I'm relying on the UN scientist report, so I'm not trying to calculate all damage -- that's in my too hard box.

 

Per the 2018 IPCC report, released every few years by the UN, the total damage was estimated between .2% and 2% I believe. and that was like 60 or 100 years out. So, 2% of global GDP was the worst-case scenario.

 

Do you have a link to this UN report? Have you read it?

[Pelagic]

 

 

We live in a world where one in six deaths are caused by easily curable infectious diseases and billions of people live in abject poverty, with no electricity and little food.

 

 

 

I worry that a warming planet may very well exacerbate these very problems. The challenge, admittedly, is we just don't know. My personal view is, why would we risk finding out by doing absolutely nothing.

 

Saw a post on The Economist's Instagram this morning about Malaria. The WHO has a goal of making the world Malaria free in 2030 and estimates it will cost $6B a year over the next decade to do that. Then it went on to talk about mismanaged funds and of late a $3B yearly shortfall toward the goal.

 

It's likely warming would exacerbate infectious diseases, and bring "tropical" diseases to places they haven't been seen in centuries (Malaria was once endemic to London and much of the US SE for instance) but I don't think that's a good enough reason to spend limited funds on delaying climate change when we can make real impacts on the lives of millions. The World Bank estimates something like 150M people could be displaced by climate change by 2050 whereas around 230M people per year are affected by Malaria. It's hard from an investment standpoint in my opinion to make the case for massive spending dedicated toward global warming when there are options that are cheaper and impact more people.

[Castanza]

In case anyone is curious, here is a list of the top scientists on both sides of the argument.

 

https://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-change-scientists/

 

[Castanza]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/technology/jeff-bezos-climate-change-earth-fund.html?0p19G=2870

 

Can’t wait to see the mental gymnastics by Bernie and the likes on this....how will they paint these evil corporations now when Bezos just split their platform in half?

 

The Left” “Amazon pays no taxes! They’re evil!”

 

Also the Left: “12 years and were all dead”

 

Bezos: “I’m basically going to lead the way for climate change research and I’m giving 10B...who’s with me?”

 

Personally, I’m a fan of this approach. People are so unsure that private sector can’t solve climate change and that it will take serious govt intervention. I think this is a much better approach to get to the bottom of the “why is the climate changing” question. Seems pointless to forcefully bankrupt Americans through taxes especially when other countries...cough cough China....aren’t doing anything positive. I’d much rather see Bezos, Musk and others like that lead the way than some inefficient government bureaucrat.

 

Perhaps ol Warren will donate a large chunk?  :P kidding kidding