4 ms·

"Economic growth" is probably a bad indicator to follow. I would rather follow "number of excess death directly or indirectly linked to climate change." I don'

by Rygian 4y ago

"Economic growth" is probably a bad indicator to follow. I would rather follow "number of excess death directly or indirectly linked to climate change." I don't know if that can be calculated somewhere.

polotics 4y ago
Also note that most deaths actually do boost the GDP metric, in the short term...
logicalmonster 4y ago
> "Economic growth" is probably a bad indicator to follow. Why? Isn't economic activity a very good proxy for normal human life, good living standards, and the capacity to adapt to any conceivable challenges? Limited economic impact from climate change is arguably the most important and positive climate related news you could ever hope to see. > I would rather follow "number of excess death directly or indirectly linked to climate change." I don't know if that can be calculated somewhere. Excess deaths due to climate change, or perhaps a ratio of excess deaths relative to the total population, might be a great metric to consider. But how could one even begin to calculate this in a way that wasn't agenda driven? One could spin pretty much anything as directly or indirectly linked to climate change. Maybe you won't, but others will. If there's bad political policies that screws over the global economy (possibly caused by the attempt to react to climate change itself) and masses starve to death the "experts" can spin it as "Economic pressures from climate change killed these people." If there's government incompetence that poisons some water supply and kills a bunch of people the "experts" can spin it as "Pressures from a changing climate contributed to a reduction in the fresh water supply that contributed to mass deaths." If there's some civil war that kills a bunch of people the "experts" can spin it as "Civil strife brought about partially from the social pressures caused by economic inequality due to a lack of climate justice caused this." If there's any natural disaster that kills a lot of people the "experts" can spin it as "Continued impacts from climate change contributed to the massive death toll." Voila, climate change directly or indirectly killed 2 billion people over some large time period, depending on how you count it. Whether you agree with it or not, using that metric is going to feel a lot like Covid where both sides see the "other side's" statistical interpretation of reality as completely untrustworthy.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  > Why? Isn't economic activity a very good proxy for normal human life, good living standards, and the capacity to adapt to any conceivable challenges? It's not a bad proxy, but it surely is not as good as actual excess death as proxy for "normal human life, good living standards and the capacity to adapt". Economic activity is means to those ends; excess death is a measurement of how far we can attain them.
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    > It's not a bad proxy, but it surely is not as good as actual excess death as proxy for "normal human life, good living standards and the capacity to adapt". Excess deaths, in and of themselves, only tell you that more people than average died. Excess deaths, in and of themselves, don't tell you why they died. While a total number of human deaths is objective and can be counted with nearly perfect confidence, human deaths from a specific cause can be extraordinarily subjective. I gave some examples in the post you're replying to, but anybody with an agenda can link virtually anything to climate change if they really want to. Therefore, this metric isn't going to be persuasive to a large amount of people.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      That's the whole point: it doesn't matter why they died. If you're doing things well, excess deaths are low. If you're doing things badly, excess deaths are high. Could be a multiplicity of reasons that connect "bad" and "excess deaths", and the specifics won't matter if you're looking for a summary of "normal human life, good living standards, capacity to adapt".
      - logicalmonster 4y ago
        Of course it matters why people die. If I was an analyst in the early 1940s analyzing why there was an excess of human deaths and wrongly attributed it to an increase in bear attacks, wouldn't that be really dumb? If you're trying to solve a specific problem, isn't getting the cause of death wrong a really big deal?
prottog 4y ago
And who will follow the number of excess lives that were enabled by the deployment of cheap (and yes, dirty) fossil fuel energy among the global poor? These decisions aren't made in a vacuum. We must weigh the costs and the benefits.
SamReidHughes 4y ago
> "number of excess death directly or indirectly linked to climate change." That will be a negative number. Because "climate change" i.e. global warming will see increased temperatures and increased crop yields.

by Rygian 4y ago

polotics 4y ago

Also note that most deaths actually do boost the GDP metric, in the short term...

logicalmonster 4y ago

> "Economic growth" is probably a bad indicator to follow. Why? Isn't economic activity a very good proxy for normal human life, good living standards, and the capacity to adapt to any conceivable challenges? Limited economic impact from climate change is arguably the most important and positive climate related news you could ever hope to see. > I would rather follow "number of excess death directly or indirectly linked to climate change." I don't know if that can be calculated somewhere. Excess deaths due to climate change, or perhaps a ratio of excess deaths relative to the total population, might be a great metric to consider. But how could one even begin to calculate this in a way that wasn't agenda driven? One could spin pretty much anything as directly or indirectly linked to climate change. Maybe you won't, but others will. If there's bad political policies that screws over the global economy (possibly caused by the attempt to react to climate change itself) and masses starve to death the "experts" can spin it as "Economic pressures from climate change killed these people." If there's government incompetence that poisons some water supply and kills a bunch of people the "experts" can spin it as "Pressures from a changing climate contributed to a reduction in the fresh water supply that contributed to mass deaths." If there's some civil war that kills a bunch of people the "experts" can spin it as "Civil strife brought about partially from the social pressures caused by economic inequality due to a lack of climate justice caused this." If there's any natural disaster that kills a lot of people the "experts" can spin it as "Continued impacts from climate change contributed to the massive death toll." Voila, climate change directly or indirectly killed 2 billion people over some large time period, depending on how you count it. Whether you agree with it or not, using that metric is going to feel a lot like Covid where both sides see the "other side's" statistical interpretation of reality as completely untrustworthy.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
> Why? Isn't economic activity a very good proxy for normal human life, good living standards, and the capacity to adapt to any conceivable challenges? It's not a bad proxy, but it surely is not as good as actual excess death as proxy for "normal human life, good living standards and the capacity to adapt". Economic activity is means to those ends; excess death is a measurement of how far we can attain them.
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  > It's not a bad proxy, but it surely is not as good as actual excess death as proxy for "normal human life, good living standards and the capacity to adapt". Excess deaths, in and of themselves, only tell you that more people than average died. Excess deaths, in and of themselves, don't tell you why they died. While a total number of human deaths is objective and can be counted with nearly perfect confidence, human deaths from a specific cause can be extraordinarily subjective. I gave some examples in the post you're replying to, but anybody with an agenda can link virtually anything to climate change if they really want to. Therefore, this metric isn't going to be persuasive to a large amount of people.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    That's the whole point: it doesn't matter why they died. If you're doing things well, excess deaths are low. If you're doing things badly, excess deaths are high. Could be a multiplicity of reasons that connect "bad" and "excess deaths", and the specifics won't matter if you're looking for a summary of "normal human life, good living standards, capacity to adapt".
    - logicalmonster 4y ago
      Of course it matters why people die. If I was an analyst in the early 1940s analyzing why there was an excess of human deaths and wrongly attributed it to an increase in bear attacks, wouldn't that be really dumb? If you're trying to solve a specific problem, isn't getting the cause of death wrong a really big deal?

prottog 4y ago

And who will follow the number of excess lives that were enabled by the deployment of cheap (and yes, dirty) fossil fuel energy among the global poor? These decisions aren't made in a vacuum. We must weigh the costs and the benefits.

SamReidHughes 4y ago

> "number of excess death directly or indirectly linked to climate change." That will be a negative number. Because "climate change" i.e. global warming will see increased temperatures and increased crop yields.