5 ms·

The costs of global warming: 2% of global GDP

14 points by Bostonian 5y ago

eniotna 5y ago
It seems inevitable at this point that part of the solution is investing in carbon capture technology in the future to offset the damages we're causing today, the question is; are the damages reversible? Asking individuals to consume less is useless at best and hypocrite at worst.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I recently looked into this. The IPCC claims that atmospheric carbon decays at about 2.5% per year. Current growth is about 0.5% per year. I think carbon-capture has a place in hitting net zero emissions. But don't think it ever have a meaningful impact on accelerating CO2 reduction afterwards. The environmental sinks are just too great for it to add meaningful impact. It will also be interesting to see what happens if atmospheric CO2 levels hit steady state conditions. Will there be interest and political will to unwind them to earlier levels?
Comevius 5y ago
By this measure agriculture is around 4% of the global GDP, so losing it entirely should not be an issue. The latest IPCC AR6 report paints a picture of a barely habitable planet by 2100. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ https://interactive-atlas.ipcc.ch/ https://interactive-atlas.ipcc.ch/ The model they used in the linked paper gives a 20% chance per 1C after 3C for large-scale discontinuity, otherwise economic and non-economic damage is just a quadratic function of the temperature. Back in reality 3C would be Mad Max, dead oceans and unhabitable land. Meat scalpers instead of graphics card scalpers. We would still prevail if the atmosphere remains viable, but not as a civilization. Certainly not at this level of resource consumption.
- tuatoru 5y ago
  The asymmetry is remarkable, too. A few years ago the argument was "preventing global warming would cost 0.1% of GDP, and that's totally unbearable." Edit: "a few years ago", hah. That was the late 1990s or thenabouts, when that's all it would have taken.
missedthecue 5y ago
Hmm. Covid lockdowns last year decreased global carbon emissions by only 6.9%, but reduced GDP by about 3.5%, according to a quick Google. Given this, it seems that reducing carbon emissions by 100% would cost a lot more than 2% of global GDP, making us better off just living with global warming.
- qeternity 5y ago
  You have the causality reversed. In covid, the emissions dropped because economic activity slowed (to the tune of 3.4% gdp). The economy didn’t slow because we reduced emissions.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    The causality actually doesn't matter to much for my argument. Less travel, manufacturing, and general production in 2020 was what caused both gdp and ghg emissions to drop. They are correlated. They both move in the same direction.
    - pharmakom 5y ago
      They don’t necessarily move in the same direction since climate change has a significant cost to GDP.
- pharmakom 5y ago
  Not quite. COVID shut down sectors by infection risk not by carbon intensiveness.
- kadoban 5y ago
  You're assuming that the method of reducing carbon emissions would be lockdowns? What a broken premise, you must realize that makes no sense? Same logic: Burning down my kitchen eliminated 1/8 of the ants in my house, therefore the cost of exterminating all the ants would be burning down the whole house.
  - 5y ago
Proven 5y ago
First, the article is almost certainly fake news. It could be easily tuned to show 1%, it could be 3%, and it's likely 0%. Second, taxes and subsidies for the climatist plunder must be more than 2% of world GDP by now.

14 points by Bostonian 5y ago

It seems inevitable at this point that part of the solution is investing in carbon capture technology in the future to offset the damages we're causing today, the question is; are the damages reversible? Asking individuals to consume less is useless at best and hypocrite at worst.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
I recently looked into this. The IPCC claims that atmospheric carbon decays at about 2.5% per year. Current growth is about 0.5% per year. I think carbon-capture has a place in hitting net zero emissions. But don't think it ever have a meaningful impact on accelerating CO2 reduction afterwards. The environmental sinks are just too great for it to add meaningful impact. It will also be interesting to see what happens if atmospheric CO2 levels hit steady state conditions. Will there be interest and political will to unwind them to earlier levels?

Comevius 5y ago

By this measure agriculture is around 4% of the global GDP, so losing it entirely should not be an issue. The latest IPCC AR6 report paints a picture of a barely habitable planet by 2100. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ https://interactive-atlas.ipcc.ch/ https://interactive-atlas.ipcc.ch/ The model they used in the linked paper gives a 20% chance per 1C after 3C for large-scale discontinuity, otherwise economic and non-economic damage is just a quadratic function of the temperature. Back in reality 3C would be Mad Max, dead oceans and unhabitable land. Meat scalpers instead of graphics card scalpers. We would still prevail if the atmosphere remains viable, but not as a civilization. Certainly not at this level of resource consumption.

tuatoru 5y ago
The asymmetry is remarkable, too. A few years ago the argument was "preventing global warming would cost 0.1% of GDP, and that's totally unbearable." Edit: "a few years ago", hah. That was the late 1990s or thenabouts, when that's all it would have taken.

missedthecue 5y ago

Hmm. Covid lockdowns last year decreased global carbon emissions by only 6.9%, but reduced GDP by about 3.5%, according to a quick Google. Given this, it seems that reducing carbon emissions by 100% would cost a lot more than 2% of global GDP, making us better off just living with global warming.

qeternity 5y ago
You have the causality reversed. In covid, the emissions dropped because economic activity slowed (to the tune of 3.4% gdp). The economy didn’t slow because we reduced emissions.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  The causality actually doesn't matter to much for my argument. Less travel, manufacturing, and general production in 2020 was what caused both gdp and ghg emissions to drop. They are correlated. They both move in the same direction.
  - pharmakom 5y ago
    They don’t necessarily move in the same direction since climate change has a significant cost to GDP.
pharmakom 5y ago
Not quite. COVID shut down sectors by infection risk not by carbon intensiveness.
kadoban 5y ago
You're assuming that the method of reducing carbon emissions would be lockdowns? What a broken premise, you must realize that makes no sense? Same logic: Burning down my kitchen eliminated 1/8 of the ants in my house, therefore the cost of exterminating all the ants would be burning down the whole house.
- 5y ago

Proven 5y ago

First, the article is almost certainly fake news. It could be easily tuned to show 1%, it could be 3%, and it's likely 0%. Second, taxes and subsidies for the climatist plunder must be more than 2% of world GDP by now.