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

Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the US Economy $14.5T by 2070

www2.deloitte.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 72 posts

Re: Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the US Economy $14.5T by 2070

#31

Post by pclmulqdq »

MaxHoppersGhost wrote: post #18

That’s it? Seems like it might be easier to spend money to mitigate the effects of climate change rather than stop climate change itself. There is probably a sweet spot between carbon reduction and climate change effect mitigation that optimizes the total cost.

Balancing this against the cost of whatever "green new deal" would be required to get there, it sounds like serious climate change mitigation is not worth it at all. Also, it's important to note that changes in GDP correspond to human lives: increases in GDP affect longevity, birth rates, and rates of accidental death.

Re: Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the US Economy $14.5T by 2070

#32

Post by civilized »

jeremyt wrote: post #25
civilized wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why so skeptical of Deloitte's climate prediction and so confident in your population one?

Because demographics are very predictable and the climate is less so.

If we take that as true, then either the top commenter or the UN is utterly incompetent to perform this very predictable prediction. Because the UN predicts steady US population growth over the next few decades, not a collapse. The Census Bureau predicts similarly.

I can't find any serious prediction of imminent collapse.

Re: Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the US Economy $14.5T by 2070

#33

Post by civilized »

alfor wrote: post #27
civilized wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why so skeptical of Deloitte's climate prediction and so confident in your population one?

You can look at the data on birth to know where it’s going (no human appears at 30yo) For climate in 50 years... Where humans will be. Consider that the internet was at the beginning 20 years ago. Where was solar and EV 20 years ago. I am bullish on human creativity, much less so on Deloitte and the governments.

It's odd, then, that I can't find any serious institution which agrees with you on this projection. Most predict steady continued growth of the US population.

Re: Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the US Economy $14.5T by 2070

#34

Post by ccooffee »

wilg wrote: post #26
ccooffee wrote: post #17

> If global warming reaches around 3°C toward the century’s end, Deloitte’s analysis indicates that economic damages would grow and compound, affecting every industry and region in the country. I'm betting we overshoot +3c by a fair bit. Given how little progress has been made (emissions are still _accelerating_), I'm at least pleased to see some resource that doesn't merely talk about +1.5c. We've passed that point…

Doesn't look like GHG emissions are still accelerating: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

Your source looks at 2020 emissions, which is TRUE, but 2020 was covid shutdowns. I've seen somewhat-reliable estimates of 2-7% reduction in CO2-equivalent emissions. (If you look at 2019, it was remarkably about equal to 2018 after many years of increase.)

But 2021 was the biggest (full year) of emissions ever, more than covering the 2020 decrease. I don't know of any resources that track quarterly emissions, so I don't know if we can see whether 2022 is on-pace for another record year. Perhaps the price of oil reduced usage enough to reduce emissions this year compared to last, but I won't hold my breath.

Re: Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the US Economy $14.5T by 2070

#35

Post by wilg »

ccooffee wrote: post #34
wilg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't look like GHG emissions are still accelerating: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

Your source looks at 2020 emissions, which is TRUE, but 2020 was covid shutdowns. I've seen somewhat-reliable estimates of 2-7% reduction in CO2-equivalent emissions. (If you look at 2019, it was remarkably about equal to 2018 after many years of increase.) But 2021 was the biggest (full year) of emissions ever, more than covering the 2020 decrease. I don't know of any resources that track quarterly emissions, so I d…

Regardless of whether it's another record year overall, I don't think there's evidence that GHG emissions are accelerating.

GHG emissions are dropping year-over-year in developed nations, and developing nations will follow. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carb...

Re: Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the US Economy $14.5T by 2070

#36

Post by DuskStar »

civilized wrote: post #33
alfor wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can look at the data on birth to know where it’s going (no human appears at 30yo) For climate in 50 years... Where humans will be. Consider that the internet was at the beginning 20 years ago. Where was solar and EV 20 years ago. I am bullish on human creativity, much less so on Deloitte and the governments.

It's odd, then, that I can't find any serious institution which agrees with you on this projection. Most predict steady continued growth of the US population.

The US population may not be decreasing, but the US has a lot of immigration. Essentially everyone else is far worse off, from China to Germany.

Re: Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the US Economy $14.5T by 2070

#37

Post by alfor »

civilized wrote: post #20
dgs_sgd wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. It's hard to take any prediction more than 5-10 years into the future seriously. Not because the predictors are being insincere or deceptive, just the inherent inability for prediction models to account for unknown unknowns.

Predictions of the actual future are hard, but predictions of the future we will encounter if we stay on the path we're on can be very straightforward and reliable. If I move a shovel full of dirt to the same place in my backyard every day for 20 years, I'm going to have a big pile of dirt there. It's the same for climate. If we keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, physics says we're going to warm the planet. It's a…

I agree with you. But we are already doing ton of things.

I know it doesn’t show on co2 concentration yet.

Solar, wind power, batteries, EV are all on exponential growth curves.

In 10 years we will be in a much different place.

Re: Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the US Economy $14.5T by 2070

#38

Post by alfor »

civilized wrote: post #32
jeremyt wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because demographics are very predictable and the climate is less so.

If we take that as true, then either the top commenter or the UN is utterly incompetent to perform this very predictable prediction. Because the UN predicts steady US population growth over the next few decades, not a collapse. The Census Bureau predicts similarly. I can't find any serious prediction of imminent collapse.

True, the population is aging (people live longer) and birth rate is collapsing.

The result is that it’s not apparent when you look at population. But aging is having a massive effect on the economy, the job sector, etc.

At some point it’s going to collapse, but because we have been below replacement for a long time it’s not going to stop anytime soon.

Look at Japan, Italy to see what is coming (they are a bit ahead) Last year japan lost 800 000 of population. At some point the japanese culture will disappear if they don’t start having babies (really not happening at the moment)

I heard that in Japan they sell more adult diaper than baby diapers...

Re: Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the US Economy $14.5T by 2070

#39

Post by mhh__ »

dgs_sgd wrote: post #10
whb07 wrote: post #3

I’d like to see this same report circa 1970: “Inaction will lead to an ice age costing $X by 2020” meanwhile there’s another thread here about a “Contrarian VC” investing in climate change…

Exactly. It's hard to take any prediction more than 5-10 years into the future seriously. Not because the predictors are being insincere or deceptive, just the inherent inability for prediction models to account for unknown unknowns.

If you go back and read old climate papers from the 80s a lot of them are pretty reasonable if they made a correct estimation of greenhouse gas emissions.
Post reply on HN