7 ms·

Opened the article expecting it to be a more abstract cost. Turns out it's about economics. Christ alive. "Yeah, billions are gonna die, but what really matter

Opened the article expecting it to be a more abstract cost. Turns out it's about economics. Christ alive. "Yeah, billions are gonna die, but what really matters is my house prices are gonna go down."

Udik 7y ago
Who said that billions are gonna die? Frankly, if the solution to climate change will slow economic growth, I think that the highest human cost will come from the lack of growth. To put it in clear terms: lack of growth means that a sewage system, or a hospital, don't get built. This _will_ cause victims.
- ben_w 7y ago
  Eh. While I’m optimistic that solutions will be found, in principle a shifting climate can radically alter food production. Billions could die. I don’t think they will, but in principle they could, and I lack the necessary background in agricultural science to tell what “likely” is.
  - Udik 7y ago
    I doubt that climate can shift so quickly that humans can't adapt at least their most important cultures. We're very good at this, and very quick, and we don't need to produce food anywhere near where it's consumed. Although of course the ships that bring immense amounts of food across the globe have been built, and are operated, with fossil fuels. As is our agriculture. Again, increase the cost of the fuel that makes both possible, and people will die.
- iikoolpp 7y ago
  Almost as if tying essential public utilities to making some rich dude nut at his stock prices isn't a good idea
  - Udik 7y ago
    I find your reply below the minimum acceptable level here; in fact I can hardly guess what you tried to say. Anyway, growth means that people who could not afford things before now can. For you it might be a new car; for somebody else it might mean a sanitation system or a reachable hospital. But who cares, you already have the car and the hospital, so screw growth.
WillPostForFood 7y ago
Remember the trending article yesterday where economists were admitting they totally got the free trade economics wrong? Well, predicting the economic effects of climate change is going to be 10x full of guesswork and mistaken assumptions and bad models. Good luck getting it right.
jeremyjh 7y ago
Do you think people can live without production of food, housing, medicine, clothing and other goods? Do you think those things get delivered without transportation and communication infrastructure? Economic cost is not abstract at all - its a reduction of things people need to live. It measures other things as well but there is virtually no harm from climate change that can’t be measured in economic terms. That’s practically a tautology.
anm89 7y ago
People love to get outraged when economists talk about human tragedy in monetary terms because they assume the sub text of discussing things in terms of money is that that's what they think is really important about the situation. This entirely misses the point. The economists want something they can measure. They are using dollar losses as a proxy for the gravity of the situation and as a proxy for relative value that people place on things. If you want someone to analyze people's feelings about the tragedy get a psychologist but there's a reason that economists are more likely to get invited to a climate summit than psychologists.
- ianleeclark 7y ago
  > The economists want something they can measure. They are using dollar losses as a proxy for the gravity of the situation and as a proxy for relative value that people place on things. This is a poor proxy, as it over-values areas with high, uneven distributions of capital accumulation. If the Netherlands were to succumb to the impending boiling sea-waters, that would necessarily have a higher "economist cost" than a similar tragedy befalling Nigeria, despite Nigeria having over 10x the population of the Netherlands. Rather than viewing the very real human impact, the "economist cost" rides the coat-tails of chauvinist mythology by saying that, yes, in fact a Dutchman is worth 11x a Nigerian. > there's a reason that economists are more likely to get invited to a climate summit than psychologists. I can guarantee you it's not the reason you think it is.
  - iikoolpp 7y ago
    > by saying that, yes, in fact a Dutchman is worth 11x a Nigerian. I'm pretty sure economists actually genuinely believe this statement.
    - anm89 7y ago
      These figures aren't used to compare tragedies across countries in a professional setting. It is always about how a government should allocate aid resources or distributions within their own economy. Except for foreign aid in which being devalued works strongly in the favor of poorer nations. Ie if I have 10 million in aid money to spend and I can buy 10 housing units in Germany or 1000 housing units in Uganda because the currency goes further, that money is going to be routed to the poorer place. So this is a total strawman. No one respectable (and I mean 0) is using these figures to compare human worth between economies.

Opened the article expecting it to be a more abstract cost. Turns out it's about economics. Christ alive. "Yeah, billions are gonna die, but what really matters is my house prices are gonna go down."

Udik 7y ago

Who said that billions are gonna die? Frankly, if the solution to climate change will slow economic growth, I think that the highest human cost will come from the lack of growth. To put it in clear terms: lack of growth means that a sewage system, or a hospital, don't get built. This _will_ cause victims.

ben_w 7y ago
Eh. While I’m optimistic that solutions will be found, in principle a shifting climate can radically alter food production. Billions could die. I don’t think they will, but in principle they could, and I lack the necessary background in agricultural science to tell what “likely” is.
- Udik 7y ago
  I doubt that climate can shift so quickly that humans can't adapt at least their most important cultures. We're very good at this, and very quick, and we don't need to produce food anywhere near where it's consumed. Although of course the ships that bring immense amounts of food across the globe have been built, and are operated, with fossil fuels. As is our agriculture. Again, increase the cost of the fuel that makes both possible, and people will die.
iikoolpp 7y ago
Almost as if tying essential public utilities to making some rich dude nut at his stock prices isn't a good idea
- Udik 7y ago
  I find your reply below the minimum acceptable level here; in fact I can hardly guess what you tried to say. Anyway, growth means that people who could not afford things before now can. For you it might be a new car; for somebody else it might mean a sanitation system or a reachable hospital. But who cares, you already have the car and the hospital, so screw growth.

WillPostForFood 7y ago

Remember the trending article yesterday where economists were admitting they totally got the free trade economics wrong? Well, predicting the economic effects of climate change is going to be 10x full of guesswork and mistaken assumptions and bad models. Good luck getting it right.

jeremyjh 7y ago

Do you think people can live without production of food, housing, medicine, clothing and other goods? Do you think those things get delivered without transportation and communication infrastructure? Economic cost is not abstract at all - its a reduction of things people need to live. It measures other things as well but there is virtually no harm from climate change that can’t be measured in economic terms. That’s practically a tautology.

anm89 7y ago

People love to get outraged when economists talk about human tragedy in monetary terms because they assume the sub text of discussing things in terms of money is that that's what they think is really important about the situation. This entirely misses the point. The economists want something they can measure. They are using dollar losses as a proxy for the gravity of the situation and as a proxy for relative value that people place on things. If you want someone to analyze people's feelings about the tragedy get a psychologist but there's a reason that economists are more likely to get invited to a climate summit than psychologists.

ianleeclark 7y ago
> The economists want something they can measure. They are using dollar losses as a proxy for the gravity of the situation and as a proxy for relative value that people place on things. This is a poor proxy, as it over-values areas with high, uneven distributions of capital accumulation. If the Netherlands were to succumb to the impending boiling sea-waters, that would necessarily have a higher "economist cost" than a similar tragedy befalling Nigeria, despite Nigeria having over 10x the population of the Netherlands. Rather than viewing the very real human impact, the "economist cost" rides the coat-tails of chauvinist mythology by saying that, yes, in fact a Dutchman is worth 11x a Nigerian. > there's a reason that economists are more likely to get invited to a climate summit than psychologists. I can guarantee you it's not the reason you think it is.
- iikoolpp 7y ago
  > by saying that, yes, in fact a Dutchman is worth 11x a Nigerian. I'm pretty sure economists actually genuinely believe this statement.
  - anm89 7y ago
    These figures aren't used to compare tragedies across countries in a professional setting. It is always about how a government should allocate aid resources or distributions within their own economy. Except for foreign aid in which being devalued works strongly in the favor of poorer nations. Ie if I have 10 million in aid money to spend and I can buy 10 housing units in Germany or 1000 housing units in Uganda because the currency goes further, that money is going to be routed to the poorer place. So this is a total strawman. No one respectable (and I mean 0) is using these figures to compare human worth between economies.