A study from the Institute and Faculty for Actuaries at the University of Exeter taking an actuarial approach to climate-related economic risks and impacts. Th

A study from the Institute and Faculty for Actuaries at the University of Exeter taking an actuarial approach to climate-related economic risks and impacts. This takes strong exception to mainstream economic analysis (Nordaus is strongly hinted at though not explicitly mentioned) which "contrast strongly with predictions made by scientists of significantly reduced human habitability from climate change". Key points (from the text): 1. Many climate-scenario models in financial services are significantly underestimating climate risk. 2. Carbon budgets may be smaller than anticipated and risks may develop more quickly. 3. Regulatory scenarios introduce consistency but also the risk of group think, with scenario analysis outcomes being taken too literally and out of context. The language is bureaucratic and technical, and the lede is deeply buried: The pace of warming is also uncertain. However, some scientists now estimate warming of 0.3°C per decade or around 1 ̊C every 30 years, which would imply warming of greater than 2°C by 2050 and 3°C by 2080. This is well within life expectancy for many in workplace schemes now and in range for the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) who have specified 80 years as long range for the Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA). Put another way, at what point do we expect 50% GDP destruction – somewhere between 2070 and 2090 depending on how you parameterise the distribution. It is worth a moment of reflection to consider what sort of catastrophic chain of events would lead to this level of economic destruction. The study also incorporate's Steve Keen's criticism of the quadratic modelling used by Nordhaus (Keen is specifically cited). I've mentioned this in earlier HN comments, here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36936360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36936360> 32 page PDF, though front- and back-matter are a substantial portion of that. Recommended reading.