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

41–50 of 72 posts

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

#41

Post by bArray »

As others have commented, $14.5 trillion USD (even with inflation) is nothing compared to the US's current outgoings.

What I _never_ see costed is the other side - what negative cost will the climate policies have on GDP? I imagine that number to be far greater.

For example: Great, you increased fuel tax and got less people driving. Now people can't get to work, deliveries are now too costly, the cost of living increases because even basic items like food need to be transported to the store, with costs given directly to the consumer.

The single most concerning thing is that no politician appears to be doing these calculations. There is no open discussion about viable climate policies that don't crush the middle and working class into poverty.

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

#42

Post by mhh__ »

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.

I don't know about demography but in my reading of various reports and so on the climate is more significantly predictable than most skeptics think it is.

The presence of many degrees of freedom does not make them all equally influential.

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

#43

Post by pseudobry »

bArray wrote: post #41

As others have commented, $14.5 trillion USD (even with inflation) is nothing compared to the US's current outgoings. What I _never_ see costed is the other side - what negative cost will the climate policies have on GDP? I imagine that number to be far greater. For example: Great, you increased fuel tax and got less people driving. Now people can't get to work, deliveries are now too costly, the cost of living incre…

An enlightening book I read on this topic is "False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet" by Bjorn Lomborg.

The book explores the cost of: doing nothing to fight climate change vs doing everything to fight climate change vs doing something in the middle that optimizes global GDP (the book uses GDP as a "human welfare" metric).

My biggest take away from the book is that regardless of global temperature increases through the end of the century, global GDP is still projected to grow A TON. But because of the temperature increase, global GCP will grow _slightly_ less (like a few % less) that it otherwise would have. The wrong policies could cost GDP growth more than the temperature increase will.

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

#45

Post by greggeter »

alfor wrote: post #22

Deloitte is able to predict the climate in 50 years? In 50 years we will have a massive population collapse, the US have been below replacement level for 50 years. China is even worse. Prepare yourself to see massive employees shortage getting worse and worse. The only thing keeping population aflot is longevity extension but 80yo don’t produce or consume much.

No post body was provided.

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

#46

Post by lancewiggs »

Inaction could lead to no society or economy to speak of. These reports are not grounded in science, and the science includes potential outcomes that, driven by continued inaction, create an environment where humans and other creatures and plants struggle to live.

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

#47

Post by klyrs »

pseudobry wrote: post #43
bArray wrote: post #41

As others have commented, $14.5 trillion USD (even with inflation) is nothing compared to the US's current outgoings. What I _never_ see costed is the other side - what negative cost will the climate policies have on GDP? I imagine that number to be far greater. For example: Great, you increased fuel tax and got less people driving. Now people can't get to work, deliveries are now too costly, the cost of living incre…

An enlightening book I read on this topic is "False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet" by Bjorn Lomborg. The book explores the cost of: doing nothing to fight climate change vs doing everything to fight climate change vs doing something in the middle that optimizes global GDP (the book uses GDP as a "human welfare" metric). My biggest take away from the bo…

If we wipe out the poorest 50% of the population, they hold less than 1% of the wealth. Is GDP right metric?

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

#48

Post by pseudobry »

klyrs wrote: post #47
pseudobry wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An enlightening book I read on this topic is "False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet" by Bjorn Lomborg. The book explores the cost of: doing nothing to fight climate change vs doing everything to fight climate change vs doing something in the middle that optimizes global GDP (the book uses GDP as a "human welfare" metric). My biggest take away from the bo…

If we wipe out the poorest 50% of the population, they hold less than 1% of the wealth. Is GDP right metric?

Annual GDP of a country != the current sum total net worth of its population. Deleting the poorest half of the US population would destroy the annual GDP, which is built on the labor of said population. Theoretically, as the GDP of a nation grows, so does the quality of life of its population through better access to everything money can buy. It kinda doesn't matter how many billionaires there are if the rest of the population is still able to buy air conditioners, health care, sturdier houses, pay taxes, and generally afford the things that make the climate the least of their worries, as there are super diminishing returns on quality of life past a certain income level (all other arguments against billionaires are outside the scope of this comment).

Developed countries are quite well equipped (as in they're rich enough) to be able to adapt to the changing climate as needed. They can buy air conditioners, build dikes, choose not to build houses in areas prone to climate disaster, etc., all if which is insanely cheaper than attempting to reduce global temperature (though that's not an argument against any attempt to reduce global temperature). Making under-developed countries richer allows them to stop doing the "worser" things that aggravate climate change and make their populations unhealthy (like burning wood for a lot of their energy needs).

(This comment is just an elaboration on the arguments in the book I mentioned—not me being an expert.)

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

#50

Post by akvadrako »

celtain wrote: post #15
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…

There was never a scientific consensus that there was a coming ice age. There were already more papers being published about global warming than about global cooling throughout the 1970s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

There isn't a coming ice age, since we are in one right now which has lasted 2 million years so far.

There is good reason to believe it isn't over and a glacial period will return.

Post reply on HN