3 ms·

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

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.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  No. I'm saying that lower economic activity and lower ghg emissions are correlated; they move in the same direction.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    They're conditionally correlated. Some ways you touch one touches the other. Same as the ants and the house.
    - missedthecue 5y ago
      Yes, you're correct that it's possible to trade some more highly emissive things for less emissive things, such as an ICE car with an electric car, and that won't necessarily lower GDP. But that's not what I'm talking about. Trying to prevent climate change is mostly a massive waste of time, effort, and money if you're only going to knock out a quartile or half of emissions. Even if we get to the point that the world emits 18 billion tons of CO2 per year instead of the 36 billion we do at present, the climate will continue to warm, and so you'll have spent all this time, money, and effort and still be where we are today anyway. So when we're talking about stopping all greenhouse gases and preventing further warming of the planet, you're going to necessarily cripple economic output, and as far as I can detect, it's going to be by a lot more than 2% of GDP.
      - kadoban 5y ago
        > But that's not what I'm talking about. Okay, but is there a reason you're not talking about that, other than that it is bad for your argument? > Even if we get to the point that the world emits 18 billion tons of CO2 per year instead of the 36 billion we do at present, the climate will continue to warm, and so you'll have spent all this time, money, and effort and still be where we are today anyway. Warming isn't binary. Dumping twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere isn't the same thing as half. > So when we're talking about stopping all greenhouse gases and preventing further warming of the planet, you're going to necessarily cripple economic output Is this just a feeling? Seems unmotivated by the rest.

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.

missedthecue 5y ago
No. I'm saying that lower economic activity and lower ghg emissions are correlated; they move in the same direction.
- kadoban 5y ago
  They're conditionally correlated. Some ways you touch one touches the other. Same as the ants and the house.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    Yes, you're correct that it's possible to trade some more highly emissive things for less emissive things, such as an ICE car with an electric car, and that won't necessarily lower GDP. But that's not what I'm talking about. Trying to prevent climate change is mostly a massive waste of time, effort, and money if you're only going to knock out a quartile or half of emissions. Even if we get to the point that the world emits 18 billion tons of CO2 per year instead of the 36 billion we do at present, the climate will continue to warm, and so you'll have spent all this time, money, and effort and still be where we are today anyway. So when we're talking about stopping all greenhouse gases and preventing further warming of the planet, you're going to necessarily cripple economic output, and as far as I can detect, it's going to be by a lot more than 2% of GDP.
    - kadoban 5y ago
      > But that's not what I'm talking about. Okay, but is there a reason you're not talking about that, other than that it is bad for your argument? > Even if we get to the point that the world emits 18 billion tons of CO2 per year instead of the 36 billion we do at present, the climate will continue to warm, and so you'll have spent all this time, money, and effort and still be where we are today anyway. Warming isn't binary. Dumping twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere isn't the same thing as half. > So when we're talking about stopping all greenhouse gases and preventing further warming of the planet, you're going to necessarily cripple economic output Is this just a feeling? Seems unmotivated by the rest.