That’s all? That’s half a year of GDP. Vs 50 years of investment in climate change reduction?
you think gdp is on a receivables account somewhere or something?
Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the US Economy $14.5T by 2070
51–60 of 72 posts
Re: Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the US Economy $14.5T by 2070
#52As 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…
We already know that climate change will apparently not affect rich people alot.
Probably somehow very few on hn.
Sooo we should probably even stop talking about it I assume?
Anyway you are aware of people/scientist saying things like 'much earlier than expected '?
We still don't know if the current scenarios will hold.
There should be a general sense that sustainability should benefit all of us.
Investing in long term topics should benefit us all as well.
Re: Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the US Economy $14.5T by 2070
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
"Will" is future tense yes. We expect the acceleration to reverse. As you say there is a reason to be optimistic if you look at the parts, but if you just look at the sum it's pretty bad still.
In other words: you are both right.
Re: Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the US Economy $14.5T by 2070
#54With the new "climate/inflation/healthcare" bill the plan calls for
investing in green power as well as increasing fossile fuel production.
I have read several news articles that claim this is the new normal and
it is realistic. Given the energy shortage now, and countries restarting coal, restarting gas, and restarting nuclear it is the reality on the ground now.
Of course, most goals set in Paris and Glasgow are shot to hell.
If this spreads to other nations, we need to recalibrate what type of goals we set. was
Re: Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the US Economy $14.5T by 2070
#55Earlier 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?
As @pseudobry mentions: 'the book uses GDP as a "human welfare" metric'.
I don't think anybody here (even the author of the book presumably) is suggesting that they are cause and effect, but they do appear to be correlated.
Also just because 50% have 1% of the wealth, doesn't mean they don't contribute towards the wealth of the other 50% of people holding 99% of the wealth. For example, your boss gets the majority of the profit, but they couldn't run the company by themselves.
Re: Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the US Economy $14.5T by 2070
#56Earlier 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…
We already know that climate change will apparently not affect rich people alot. Probably somehow very few on hn. Sooo we should probably even stop talking about it I assume? Anyway you are aware of people/scientist saying things like 'much earlier than expected '? We still don't know if the current scenarios will hold. There should be a general sense that sustainability should benefit all of us. Investing in long te…
So honest question of Rich people are 90% of the economy and climate change won’t impact them much then is a huge climate change cost really a possibility?
Re: Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the US Economy $14.5T by 2070
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we wipe out the poorest 50% of the population, they hold less than 1% of the wealth. Is GDP right metric?
As @pseudobry mentions: 'the book uses GDP as a "human welfare" metric'. I don't think anybody here (even the author of the book presumably) is suggesting that they are cause and effect, but they do appear to be correlated. Also just because 50% have 1% of the wealth, doesn't mean they don't contribute towards the wealth of the other 50% of people holding 99% of the wealth. For example, your boss gets the majority of…
But having a lower 50% worker be poorer is net neutral or benefit for the boss as there he has more power over people at or near starvation wages
Re: Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the US Economy $14.5T by 2070
#58As 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…
$14.5 Trillion dollars sure seems like a lot of money.
Re: Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the US Economy $14.5T by 2070
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
We already know that climate change will apparently not affect rich people alot. Probably somehow very few on hn. Sooo we should probably even stop talking about it I assume? Anyway you are aware of people/scientist saying things like 'much earlier than expected '? We still don't know if the current scenarios will hold. There should be a general sense that sustainability should benefit all of us. Investing in long te…
So honest question of Rich people are 90% of the economy and climate change won’t impact them much then is a huge climate change cost really a possibility?
I hope so
I have a conscience others as well.
Also the economic version of it: mass migrations, labor shortages, unstable countries are bad for people in a service oriented society.
The riots in USA can be a typical symptom.
Of course USA is a bad example due to it being normal of having gated communities but other countries do not have that as extreme.
Re: Inaction on Climate Change Could Cost the US Economy $14.5T by 2070
#60As 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…
$14.5 Trillion dollars sure seems like a lot of money.
Over 50 years for the entire US with inflation? Probably not much.