4 ms·

5% is still much higher than the costs of climate change for at least a century (at least if you believe the IPCC projections).

dane-pgp 5y ago
I'm not sure which projections you're referring to, but researchers at UCL concluded: "the damage costs caused by climate change will reach $5.4 trillion a year by 2070, and $31 trillion a year by 2200" https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/energy/news/2020/oct/cdp-and-ucl-report-climate-crisis-cost-reach-31-trillion-year-if-emissions-not-rapidly https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/energy/news/2020/oct/cdp-and-...
- bobcostas55 5y ago
  I'm thinking of this projection here: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SR15_Chapter3_Low_Res.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SR15... Which gives an estimate of 2.6% of global GDP in 2100. The one you mention seems to be in the same ballpark: assuming 2% growth, in 2070 global GDP will probably be somewhere around 220T, so 5.4/220 = 2.4%.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    Thats for 1.5 degrees, a target we've already missed. We are now on track for over 3 degrees right now, and every extra degree of heating is exponentially more damaging than the last. Consider that -4 degrees chage had washington DC under a glacier thats two miles of ice, and now imagine the same change in the other direction.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  The same report you linked (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/energy/sites/bartlett/files/cdp-gdp-report-2020.pdf https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/energy/sites/bartlett/files/c... page 10) includes interesting parts regarding e.g. climate change damage to agriculture like "temperate regions in Canada, US and Europe have positive GDP impacts whilst negative impacts are expected in India, other developing Asia, the Middle East, Central and South America." It does not go into that detail for the other types of damage because there it's just different rates of negatives, however, it's reasonable to assume that the regional differences there are also just as large. It's hard for politicians to ask a Kansas farmer for a large extra tax for CO2 removal if the main justification of it is that it eventually will prevent much larger costs to someone else overseas. In essence, policy decisions are made on a national level, mostly by people accountable to their own citizens and needing their approval (no matter if in democractic elections or needing to sustain their authoritarian power) - and you can't match national costs (since any decision to pay or invest will be national) versus global benefits of mitigation, you need to consider what the local consequences of doing nothing are going to be as that is what is going to drive all the actual action and decisions even while the same politicians make empty talks about global solidarity.
matthewdgreen 5y ago
>at least if you believe the IPCC projection Maybe you shouldn't. The IPCC does good work, but their predictions are conservative and imperfect, and they mostly ignore tail risks. Up until 2012 they predicted that arctic summer sea ice would last until the 2050s, and now it's estimated to be gone by the 2030s.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  > The IPCC does good work, but... Does anyone do better projection work?

dane-pgp 5y ago

I'm not sure which projections you're referring to, but researchers at UCL concluded: "the damage costs caused by climate change will reach $5.4 trillion a year by 2070, and $31 trillion a year by 2200" https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/energy/news/2020/oct/cdp-and-ucl-report-climate-crisis-cost-reach-31-trillion-year-if-emissions-not-rapidly https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/energy/news/2020/oct/cdp-and-...

bobcostas55 5y ago
I'm thinking of this projection here: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SR15_Chapter3_Low_Res.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SR15... Which gives an estimate of 2.6% of global GDP in 2100. The one you mention seems to be in the same ballpark: assuming 2% growth, in 2070 global GDP will probably be somewhere around 220T, so 5.4/220 = 2.4%.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Thats for 1.5 degrees, a target we've already missed. We are now on track for over 3 degrees right now, and every extra degree of heating is exponentially more damaging than the last. Consider that -4 degrees chage had washington DC under a glacier thats two miles of ice, and now imagine the same change in the other direction.
PeterisP 5y ago
The same report you linked (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/energy/sites/bartlett/files/cdp-gdp-report-2020.pdf https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/energy/sites/bartlett/files/c... page 10) includes interesting parts regarding e.g. climate change damage to agriculture like "temperate regions in Canada, US and Europe have positive GDP impacts whilst negative impacts are expected in India, other developing Asia, the Middle East, Central and South America." It does not go into that detail for the other types of damage because there it's just different rates of negatives, however, it's reasonable to assume that the regional differences there are also just as large. It's hard for politicians to ask a Kansas farmer for a large extra tax for CO2 removal if the main justification of it is that it eventually will prevent much larger costs to someone else overseas. In essence, policy decisions are made on a national level, mostly by people accountable to their own citizens and needing their approval (no matter if in democractic elections or needing to sustain their authoritarian power) - and you can't match national costs (since any decision to pay or invest will be national) versus global benefits of mitigation, you need to consider what the local consequences of doing nothing are going to be as that is what is going to drive all the actual action and decisions even while the same politicians make empty talks about global solidarity.

matthewdgreen 5y ago

>at least if you believe the IPCC projection Maybe you shouldn't. The IPCC does good work, but their predictions are conservative and imperfect, and they mostly ignore tail risks. Up until 2012 they predicted that arctic summer sea ice would last until the 2050s, and now it's estimated to be gone by the 2030s.

BurningFrog 5y ago
> The IPCC does good work, but... Does anyone do better projection work?