5 ms·

Climate impact of a transatlantic flight could cost global economy $3k

11 points by montalbano 5y ago

missedthecue 5y ago
Every tonne of carbon emitted imposes $3000 in costs? That must mean that every ton of carbon emitted also provides at least $3000 in benefits, because humanity is a lot richer on net since we began blasting the stuff into our atmosphere a few hundred years ago. Or, their calculation is off. Could be either one.
vegetablepotpie 5y ago
Researchers at Cambridge University, University College London and Imperial College London, as well as international partners from Switzerland, Germany, the US and Austria found that > For every tonne of carbon dioxide emitted, the global economy would be $3,000 worse off by the end of the century, they estimated. This is because they observed that the time it takes for communities to recover from natural disasters takes more than a few months. I would like to see the study(ies) the researchers put out so that I can see what kind of assumptions they made. I did not see their work referenced in the article.
- montalbano 5y ago
  The authors were quoted in the article. I found the paper on researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jarmo-Kikstra/publication/350443280_The_social_cost_of_carbon_dioxide_under_climate-economy_feedbacks_and_temperature_variability/links/605fc212458515e83476de2c/The-social-cost-of-carbon-dioxide-under-climate-economy-feedbacks-and-temperature-variability.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jarmo-Kikstra/publicati...
melling 5y ago
“For every tonne of carbon dioxide emitted, the global economy would be $3,000 worse off by the end of the century, they estimated.” Going after aviation again. Do these types of articles market well? Hopefully, someday someone will start looking at the climate change problem intelligently. the world still generates 80% of its electricity with fossil fuels. The thousands of coal power plants in particular are extremely bad. Doing this for decades is the real problem.
- avmich 5y ago
  I'm almost totally in agreement. The part which I don't agree with is that we don't need to care at all about aviation being a part of the problem. Maybe you didn't intend it to sound this way, I might be mistaken. I think we should think carefully enough about such problems before they become front row problems.
throwawaysea 5y ago
This article is very vague. I get the feeling it doesn’t link to the underlying source research on purpose. This $3000 is the predicted cost over the remainder of the century, which means the present day value of the claimed impact is a lot lower. I also wonder if they accounted for the economic and social benefits of the flight to keep things balanced. And do they compound the benefits into the future as well, to perform an even accounting of 2100 costs versus benefits? I’m guessing not.
jefflombardjr 5y ago
What does transatlantic have anything to do with it? A flight from NYC to SFO is bad too.
- ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
  There's been this growing stance to ban international tourism. It's been popping up more often since I saw it for the first time a couple years ago. I don't believe we're too far away from it being one of the next hate taxes to be passed anyways, unfortunately.
drekipus 5y ago
When they say "global economy $3000" do they mean, like, 3000 of us have got to chip in a buck? Because $3000 is a very low figure to make a sensationalism article out of. I feel like this is written for a specific purpose. Someone will know what it means, but it's not us.
Ekaros 5y ago
3000 sounds high figure. Could then one calculate how much we can emit until costs go negative, that is entire global economy is gone?
tito 5y ago
This implies gasoline costs society $30 per gallon. Here's the math. Each gallon of gasoline in the USA costs roughly $4. Burning the gallon of gasoline creates roughly 10kg of carbon dioxide. 1 ton of emissions therefore equates to roughly 100 gallons of gas. (100 x 10 kg = 1000 kg = 1 ton) So, in the USA you paid $400 for those 100 gallons. But the social impact of those emissions is $3,000. If taxed properly, this implies gas would be $30/gallon. Think about that next time you drive, fly...and figure out how to build better solutions. When you buy gas you're getting it for a steal, paying $4 for something that costs the world $30. It's hard to resist! We need to be carbon neutral yesterday, and also remove carbon dioxide from the air that's already there. (If of interest, for more background on this, check out Michael Greenstone's work at the University of Chicago on the "social cost of carbon".)
panax 5y ago
$3k per ton seems quite high and if so would make even current direct air capture tech at $500-$600 per ton a bargain.

11 points by montalbano 5y ago

Every tonne of carbon emitted imposes $3000 in costs? That must mean that every ton of carbon emitted also provides at least $3000 in benefits, because humanity is a lot richer on net since we began blasting the stuff into our atmosphere a few hundred years ago. Or, their calculation is off. Could be either one.

vegetablepotpie 5y ago

Researchers at Cambridge University, University College London and Imperial College London, as well as international partners from Switzerland, Germany, the US and Austria found that > For every tonne of carbon dioxide emitted, the global economy would be $3,000 worse off by the end of the century, they estimated. This is because they observed that the time it takes for communities to recover from natural disasters takes more than a few months. I would like to see the study(ies) the researchers put out so that I can see what kind of assumptions they made. I did not see their work referenced in the article.

montalbano 5y ago
The authors were quoted in the article. I found the paper on researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jarmo-Kikstra/publication/350443280_The_social_cost_of_carbon_dioxide_under_climate-economy_feedbacks_and_temperature_variability/links/605fc212458515e83476de2c/The-social-cost-of-carbon-dioxide-under-climate-economy-feedbacks-and-temperature-variability.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jarmo-Kikstra/publicati...

melling 5y ago

“For every tonne of carbon dioxide emitted, the global economy would be $3,000 worse off by the end of the century, they estimated.” Going after aviation again. Do these types of articles market well? Hopefully, someday someone will start looking at the climate change problem intelligently. the world still generates 80% of its electricity with fossil fuels. The thousands of coal power plants in particular are extremely bad. Doing this for decades is the real problem.

avmich 5y ago
I'm almost totally in agreement. The part which I don't agree with is that we don't need to care at all about aviation being a part of the problem. Maybe you didn't intend it to sound this way, I might be mistaken. I think we should think carefully enough about such problems before they become front row problems.

throwawaysea 5y ago

This article is very vague. I get the feeling it doesn’t link to the underlying source research on purpose. This $3000 is the predicted cost over the remainder of the century, which means the present day value of the claimed impact is a lot lower. I also wonder if they accounted for the economic and social benefits of the flight to keep things balanced. And do they compound the benefits into the future as well, to perform an even accounting of 2100 costs versus benefits? I’m guessing not.

jefflombardjr 5y ago

What does transatlantic have anything to do with it? A flight from NYC to SFO is bad too.

ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
There's been this growing stance to ban international tourism. It's been popping up more often since I saw it for the first time a couple years ago. I don't believe we're too far away from it being one of the next hate taxes to be passed anyways, unfortunately.

drekipus 5y ago

When they say "global economy $3000" do they mean, like, 3000 of us have got to chip in a buck? Because $3000 is a very low figure to make a sensationalism article out of. I feel like this is written for a specific purpose. Someone will know what it means, but it's not us.

Ekaros 5y ago

3000 sounds high figure. Could then one calculate how much we can emit until costs go negative, that is entire global economy is gone?

tito 5y ago

This implies gasoline costs society $30 per gallon. Here's the math. Each gallon of gasoline in the USA costs roughly $4. Burning the gallon of gasoline creates roughly 10kg of carbon dioxide. 1 ton of emissions therefore equates to roughly 100 gallons of gas. (100 x 10 kg = 1000 kg = 1 ton) So, in the USA you paid $400 for those 100 gallons. But the social impact of those emissions is $3,000. If taxed properly, this implies gas would be $30/gallon. Think about that next time you drive, fly...and figure out how to build better solutions. When you buy gas you're getting it for a steal, paying $4 for something that costs the world $30. It's hard to resist! We need to be carbon neutral yesterday, and also remove carbon dioxide from the air that's already there. (If of interest, for more background on this, check out Michael Greenstone's work at the University of Chicago on the "social cost of carbon".)

panax 5y ago

$3k per ton seems quite high and if so would make even current direct air capture tech at $500-$600 per ton a bargain.