4 ms·

>A “do nothing” climate change scenario will be bad for Bangladesh, but not as bad as hampering economic growth. Citation very much needed. Everything I've re

>A “do nothing” climate change scenario will be bad for Bangladesh, but not as bad as hampering economic growth. Citation very much needed. Everything I've read about global warming tells me the eventual GDP impact of 'business as usual' warming will dwarf everything else. It's not just the flooding. It's the rise in wet bulb temps, the droughts, the forest fires, etc. This does not magically end at 2100 just because our projections end there. This goes on for millenia. I cannot fathom, how one could look at the facts and science and come to your conclusion.

tick_tock_tick 6y ago
Compounding effects. $1,000,000 5% over 80 years = $49,561,441.07 $1,000,000 4% over 80 years = $23,049,799.07 I don't even think the most outlandish have climate change being greater than 50% of GDP.
CyanBird 6y ago
>... tells me the eventual... To you this is an eventuality, to them the problems are right now, it is right now that they need electricity for the X million people without access to it, it is right now that they have to use huge amounts of concrete to build infrastructure, it is right now that they have to expand their transport/truck fleets to transport food to themselves or the million/several hundred thousands of Roinhya which arrived to the country in the last 2 years Walk 100 miles in the other person's shoes
rayiner 6y ago
A ton of research has been done on the economic impacts of climate change, accounting for those environmental effects. E.g. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018EF000922 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201... The mainstream “facts and science” does not support the conclusion that climate change will eventually “dwarf everything else” in the economy, not even for hard-hit countries like Bangladesh. The 1/3 number for Bangladesh by 2060 is one of the higher estimates I’ve seen, from Asian Development Bank. Others show less than 10%. See also: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/19/climate-change-could-cost-us-up-percent-its-gdp-by-study-finds/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/19/climate-ch... (“Climate change could cost the U.S. up to 10.5 percent of its GDP by 2100, study finds.”). 10% is a lot! It’s trillions of dollars, and it would be worthwhile to spend a significant amount of money to avoid it. But we need to pay attention to the science.
tptacek 6y ago
I'm not sure what the argument is here, because no matter how persuasively you write the message board post, the empirical evidence seems to support Rayiner's argument, which isn't that carbon is good, but that the developing world is carbonizing far more rapidly than the developed world is decarbonizing.
fomine3 6y ago
Negative externality.

tick_tock_tick 6y ago

Compounding effects. $1,000,000 5% over 80 years = $49,561,441.07 $1,000,000 4% over 80 years = $23,049,799.07 I don't even think the most outlandish have climate change being greater than 50% of GDP.

CyanBird 6y ago

>... tells me the eventual... To you this is an eventuality, to them the problems are right now, it is right now that they need electricity for the X million people without access to it, it is right now that they have to use huge amounts of concrete to build infrastructure, it is right now that they have to expand their transport/truck fleets to transport food to themselves or the million/several hundred thousands of Roinhya which arrived to the country in the last 2 years Walk 100 miles in the other person's shoes

rayiner 6y ago

A ton of research has been done on the economic impacts of climate change, accounting for those environmental effects. E.g. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018EF000922 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201... The mainstream “facts and science” does not support the conclusion that climate change will eventually “dwarf everything else” in the economy, not even for hard-hit countries like Bangladesh. The 1/3 number for Bangladesh by 2060 is one of the higher estimates I’ve seen, from Asian Development Bank. Others show less than 10%. See also: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/19/climate-change-could-cost-us-up-percent-its-gdp-by-study-finds/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/19/climate-ch... (“Climate change could cost the U.S. up to 10.5 percent of its GDP by 2100, study finds.”). 10% is a lot! It’s trillions of dollars, and it would be worthwhile to spend a significant amount of money to avoid it. But we need to pay attention to the science.

tptacek 6y ago

I'm not sure what the argument is here, because no matter how persuasively you write the message board post, the empirical evidence seems to support Rayiner's argument, which isn't that carbon is good, but that the developing world is carbonizing far more rapidly than the developed world is decarbonizing.

fomine3 6y ago

Negative externality.