3 ms·

> Economic estimates of the cost of effective measures vary, but typical estimate is 0.5 - 1% reduction into world GDP. This is something we don't have politica

> Economic estimates of the cost of effective measures vary, but typical estimate is 0.5 - 1% reduction into world GDP. This is something we don't have political will to do and mentioning negatives is a taboo. Rational people just flatly refuse to acknowledge that it's possible that reducing carbon emissions might be net negative for economy next 20-40 years. I think it is genuinely difficult to say that with any certainty. The economy as well as the climate is highly non linear, with all sorts of unforeseen cost gradients off in undiscovered territory, of low slopes and mountain ridges, and local minima. The purpose of a carbon tax would be to lower the barriers in favour of low carbon technologies, but we can't say in advance what the result will be, until we are on that path, and seeing the outcome of our capital investments. It's perfectly possible that we could collectively direct our capital investments solely in solar, batteries, fuel cells etc, and within a short period of time they drive below the local minima accessible through fossil and combustion technologies. You would see a great disruption of existing investments, but disruption is not inherently a bad thing. You could see 40 years of extraordinary technological and economic progress, but even so you'd still have no way to compare what the outcome might have been of 40 years of energy investment going solely to fossil fuels, relative to the same time and money going to the alternatives. It is undiscovered until you are there. I think ultimately we just have to do our best to price in the externalized costs and to a certain extent to set the hard limits of the amount of damage we are willing to inflict, and let the economy adjust to the reality of the situation.

nabla9 10y ago
>I think it is genuinely difficult Yes. It's difficult to say, but you can make estimates and they have been done. Estimates made by economists are better than wishful thinking. >You could see 40 years of extraordinary technological and economic progres We don't have time. We have used our carbon budget. Doing things in hurry is what increases the cost. To stop global warming below 2 C requires that our emissions are cut into fraction of current levels within 15 years. That's incredibly short time. We should be shutting down coal plants already and companies should write off their investments. There is no time for smooth transition. Major estimates agree that that avoiding climate change is affordable can can be done, but time has run out (not running out, has run out). U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that the cost would be 13 trillion trough 2030 using idealized scenarios. It would reduce GDP just 0.1%. Big task but clearly affordable. The bad new is that there is no sign that there is will to invest even close that much. There is no political will to do that. IEA estimates say that the cost is around $30 trillion. Things like GOP's "clean carbon" policy take out the possible and all idealized scenarios. There is no change in hell that GOP ruled House does anything significant to make "perfectly possible" happen. 4 years from now cost has increased again. >I think ultimately we just have to do our best to price in the externalized costs and to a certain extent to set the hard limits of the amount of damage we are willing to inflict, and let the economy adjust to the reality of the situation. Yes. I think 4 degrees is what is going to happen. Horrible cost for humanity and nature. Show your kids coral reefs when they are still there.

nabla9 10y ago

>I think it is genuinely difficult Yes. It's difficult to say, but you can make estimates and they have been done. Estimates made by economists are better than wishful thinking. >You could see 40 years of extraordinary technological and economic progres We don't have time. We have used our carbon budget. Doing things in hurry is what increases the cost. To stop global warming below 2 C requires that our emissions are cut into fraction of current levels within 15 years. That's incredibly short time. We should be shutting down coal plants already and companies should write off their investments. There is no time for smooth transition. Major estimates agree that that avoiding climate change is affordable can can be done, but time has run out (not running out, has run out). U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that the cost would be 13 trillion trough 2030 using idealized scenarios. It would reduce GDP just 0.1%. Big task but clearly affordable. The bad new is that there is no sign that there is will to invest even close that much. There is no political will to do that. IEA estimates say that the cost is around $30 trillion. Things like GOP's "clean carbon" policy take out the possible and all idealized scenarios. There is no change in hell that GOP ruled House does anything significant to make "perfectly possible" happen. 4 years from now cost has increased again. >I think ultimately we just have to do our best to price in the externalized costs and to a certain extent to set the hard limits of the amount of damage we are willing to inflict, and let the economy adjust to the reality of the situation. Yes. I think 4 degrees is what is going to happen. Horrible cost for humanity and nature. Show your kids coral reefs when they are still there.