Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 183 posts

Re: Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think

#141

Post by tito »

mooneater wrote: post #136
mooneater wrote: post #22

Im not sure why anyone expects these estimates to hold any water at all. From what I gather, pressure from the establishment has systematically caused scientists to lowball impact estimates and ignore second (and higher) order effects. Meanwhile the complexity and far reach of impact is beyond anything we can model. Consider how all the experts were surprised in the 2008 economic crisis. That was just an economic cri…

Downvoters please help me understand your angle here

I upvoted, FWIW. Maybe help explain your perspective some more? It sounds like you're just kind of saying "we can't model anything so why bother?".

We can model what we can. Sure, the big recession catches the world by surprise, but people are working constantly to model these systems, and it seems to be better than doing nothing.

Climate models for example tell us that carbon dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas, and gives us an idea of the amount of warming we'll see at various levels.

+/- 6 orders of magnitude seems like a lot. Like that seems like we don't know whether we'll have 400 ppm or 400,000,000 ppm in the future?

Re: Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think

#143

Post by rayiner »

standardUser wrote: post #55
chris_va wrote: post #23

(disclaimer: I work in a Climate&Energy research group) I just want to remind everyone that there are solutions to climate change. We know how to produce clean energy and sequester CO2. The current free market does not make those solutions profitable for investors, though, and we will have to change that. Solving climate change can be as simple as getting a carbon price adopted. It needs to ramp up over time, allow a…

One simple thing we can all do is never vote for a candidate if they are not for aggressive and immediate measures to combat global warming. If the roughly 60-75% of Americans who believe human activity is causing climate change were to stop voting for individuals who don't believe this, we'd have meaningful change coming from the federal government within 2 years.

It depends entirely on (1) whether you think those "aggressive and immediate measures to combat global warming" will work; and (2) the economic cost of those measures relative to climate change costs.

One estimate of a 3.7C warming scenario is a total cost of $550 trillion: https://www.axios.com/climate-change-costs-wealth-carbon-tax.... That's about in the 2100 timeframe.

That sounds like a lot, except OECD projects that by 2060 world GDP will be $267 trillion annually: https://data.oecd.org/gdp/gdp-long-term-forecast.htm. Estimates of world GDP in 2100 are in the $250-$500 trillion range annually.

That means that adopting policies that cause us to hit the lower end of that range instead of the upper end of that range could cost us more than the total cost of a 3.7C increase in just a few years. And if those government policies don't work then you will have paid that cost, and you'll have to deal with the cost of climate change on top of it.

Now, of course lots of things could happen. Climate change could be an extinction-level problem. (According to the IPCC, there is "virtually no chance" of anthropogenic causes resulting in a Venus-like runaway greenhouse effect.) Or we could figure out workable CCS in 2050 and average climate change entirely. (That's also not super likely.)

Ultimately, the rational course depends on what you think of government action in this area. If you think it'll cost a lot but end up ineffective (like say the "War on Poverty") then it's completely rational to vote against it. If you think it'll work without hurting economic growth significantly, then it's rational to vote for it.

Re: Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think

#144

Post by tbabb »

standardUser wrote: post #55
chris_va wrote: post #23

(disclaimer: I work in a Climate&Energy research group) I just want to remind everyone that there are solutions to climate change. We know how to produce clean energy and sequester CO2. The current free market does not make those solutions profitable for investors, though, and we will have to change that. Solving climate change can be as simple as getting a carbon price adopted. It needs to ramp up over time, allow a…

One simple thing we can all do is never vote for a candidate if they are not for aggressive and immediate measures to combat global warming. If the roughly 60-75% of Americans who believe human activity is causing climate change were to stop voting for individuals who don't believe this, we'd have meaningful change coming from the federal government within 2 years.

It's nearly impossible in the US to vote for a candidate based on policy instead of party, due to the twin dangers of split majorities and Keynesian beauty contests (a.k.a., the need to choose for "electability").

The only remedy to the above problems is abolishing first-past-the-post elections in favor of instant runoff.

Re: Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think

#145

Post by NeedMoreTea »

dexen wrote: post #107
danso wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange. You seem to have posted a doctored image. The fact that your "1977" image uses modern typography should have been an obvious giveaway to you before you posted it. https://apnews.com/afs:Content:5755221200 > AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The Time cover labeled in social posts as coming from 1977 is actually a cover from 2007, with the image altered to change the title from “The Global Warming Survival Guide” to “Ho…

Strange. You seem to have posted a link to a source discredited on the subject of climate. The fact that we are seeing the same headlines for many years now should have been an obvious giveaway to you before you posted it. https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 >June 30, 1989 > A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if th…

Your quote appears correct "if the global warming trend" is not reversed by year 2000. It hasn't and we still appear to be marching towards the lower lying island nations, such as the Maldives, disappearing. There is no mention of when they will disappear.

So it appears to strengthen rather than weaken the argument.

Re: Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think

#146

Post by jonbronson »

glitchc wrote: post #104
chris_va wrote: post #23

(disclaimer: I work in a Climate&Energy research group) I just want to remind everyone that there are solutions to climate change. We know how to produce clean energy and sequester CO2. The current free market does not make those solutions profitable for investors, though, and we will have to change that. Solving climate change can be as simple as getting a carbon price adopted. It needs to ramp up over time, allow a…

I’m familiar with the science and I’m afraid to say there are no easy solutions to climate change. Every meaningful systemic solution requires a dramatic curtailment of our current energy use, and would have tremendous negative socioeconomic impact. In short, all meaningful solutions rely on everyone’s life getting a bit worse, and in many cases, esp. in the western world, a lot worse. Furthermore, any systemic solut…

I've read assessments from climate scientists that don't paint nearly as dark a situation in terms of what we CAN do. The hard part is simply making it a political reality.

But even ignoring that, it's important to define "worse". Worse than a year round fire season constantly threatening to burn down your home? Worse than 50 year floods every single year? As the impacts of climate change become more real to individuals, I think you'll find the "worse" situation is not doing anything.

Re: Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think

#147

Post by dahart »

rayiner wrote: post #143
standardUser wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One simple thing we can all do is never vote for a candidate if they are not for aggressive and immediate measures to combat global warming. If the roughly 60-75% of Americans who believe human activity is causing climate change were to stop voting for individuals who don't believe this, we'd have meaningful change coming from the federal government within 2 years.

It depends entirely on (1) whether you think those "aggressive and immediate measures to combat global warming" will work; and (2) the economic cost of those measures relative to climate change costs. One estimate of a 3.7C warming scenario is a total cost of $550 trillion: https://www.axios.com/climate-change-costs-wealth-carbon-tax... . That's about in the 2100 timeframe. That sounds like a lot, except OECD project…

> If you think it’ll cost a lot but end up ineffective [...] then it’s completely rational to vote against it.

That is true, and I easily agree with everything you said, but FWIW there have been studies on whether cost-benefit analysis actually works by examining the outcomes after the fact. For example this set of case studies demonstrating that cost-benefit decision making would have historically made the wrong choice, and that sometimes our estimates for costs in the future are wrong by orders of magnitude.

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...

Point being that the completely rational vote isn’t always the right vote. Focusing on costs rather than goals sometimes leads us to miss the big picture.

Re: Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think

#148

Post by polotics »

rayiner wrote: post #143
standardUser wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One simple thing we can all do is never vote for a candidate if they are not for aggressive and immediate measures to combat global warming. If the roughly 60-75% of Americans who believe human activity is causing climate change were to stop voting for individuals who don't believe this, we'd have meaningful change coming from the federal government within 2 years.

It depends entirely on (1) whether you think those "aggressive and immediate measures to combat global warming" will work; and (2) the economic cost of those measures relative to climate change costs. One estimate of a 3.7C warming scenario is a total cost of $550 trillion: https://www.axios.com/climate-change-costs-wealth-carbon-tax... . That's about in the 2100 timeframe. That sounds like a lot, except OECD project…

The estimates are totally off: 3.7 degrees hits many tipping points, coastal cities are worth how much?

Re: Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think

#149

Post by ciconia »

chris_va wrote: post #23

(disclaimer: I work in a Climate&Energy research group) I just want to remind everyone that there are solutions to climate change. We know how to produce clean energy and sequester CO2. The current free market does not make those solutions profitable for investors, though, and we will have to change that. Solving climate change can be as simple as getting a carbon price adopted. It needs to ramp up over time, allow a…

> Solving climate change can be as simple as getting a carbon price adopted.

Such a solution cannot work, as long as we have a growth-based economy. The fact is that economists have long regarded natural resources as infinite, and their models are conceived accordingly.

Infinite growth is by definition incompatible with a finite planet. Until we have come up with a new, finite economic model (which means also a profound change to our way of living), I'm afraid there's no easy solution to the climate crisis.

Re: Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think

#150

Post by rayiner »

polotics wrote: post #148
rayiner wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends entirely on (1) whether you think those "aggressive and immediate measures to combat global warming" will work; and (2) the economic cost of those measures relative to climate change costs. One estimate of a 3.7C warming scenario is a total cost of $550 trillion: https://www.axios.com/climate-change-costs-wealth-carbon-tax... . That's about in the 2100 timeframe. That sounds like a lot, except OECD project…

The estimates are totally off: 3.7 degrees hits many tipping points, coastal cities are worth how much?

The underlying study was the basis for conclusions in a recent IPCC report. And the study accounts for tipping points ("discontinuities"). The estimated cost for a 2C warming is just $70 trillion.
Post reply on HN