Climate damages by 2050 will be 6 times the cost of limiting warming to 2°
Climate damages by 2050 will be 6 times the cost of limiting warming to 2°
Study tracks the past costs of climate events and projects them into the future.
We will spend it then because they will have to. They won't spend it now because it's not necessary. It's human nature.
Them: profit now, dead later.
Young people: pay now, pay later.
It won't be spending.
Land, buildings, businesses, capitals will be lost. That's cost and spending won't fight back the sea. Not everywhere that matters, populated areas will be written off.
It will be a hard fought lesson but one modern society needs to experience
Self-driving cars are probably 100x the cost of better transit as well, guess what we chose?
Yeah. We'd rather create consciousness to drive for us than put down some fucking rail.
"Costs more" is just another way to say "makes somebody more money".
Wait. Strike that. Reverse it. This is just capitalism functioning as intended.
Chasing self driving cars that are still 10 years out while still not doing public transit!
This might be the new thing that's always 10 years away.
Public costs, private profits. The usual.
This is the thing that always drives me up the fucking wall when people say it's too expensive to fix. Expensive compared to what? It's like saying it's not worth stopping your car driving off the cliff because it will take energy to hit the brakes or move the steering wheel, just totally ignoring the fact that there is a huge cost to doing nothing.
Anyway, sorry for the rant but this whole issue is insane.
Yes but now imagine the breaks are in your car but the car that goes down the cliff is owned by someone that is not even born yet.
This one kills me too.
I've posted this a few times because it says a lot about the priorities of America. We have the money, we just don't have the political power to get that money to do what it needs to do.
Why should we believe that the information they are giving us is true? If they claimed it would be 100x, how would we have any way to know its true?
Because you can very easily already calculate the increased cost of natural disasters; droughts, floods, severe storms with wind and hail damage, crop spoilage, etc that is occurring right now. The future disasters will be worse.
As explained in the article they take the cost of current disasters and multiply the known effects of global warming to calculate what costs will be. They can only calculate what they know.
The costs are probably more like 1000x anyway because there is no way to really apply an accounting system to a complete calamity that would happen if numerous very likely feedback loops happen, as they hint to in the article.
But the economy!
The economy won't exist as it is today. Cost of adapting is bigger than economic growth by 2100, if not 2050. Private isurance as a concept no longer applies in many places as many properties are exposed to floods and storms by then making it too expensive to be useful.
I really don't think cost-benefit analysis is going to sway very many people. A lot of people continue to believe in the idea that humans are wholly rational, calculating, utility maximizing individuals, and thus if we just show them how much money they can save, they'll support climate mitigation efforts. But this model of rational economic man is wrong. Maybe it describes some people well enough, but I think it's a poor representation of how most people think and behave.
Humans are not wholly "rational." We are often influenced by emotions and our passions that can be decidedly irrational. But the thing I really take issue with is this continued narrative that humans are fully atomized individuals. It absolutely needs to stop, it's simply untrue. Humans are social, hyper social, even. We form all sorts of interconnected relationships, we depend on them, even, and we are highly tribal by our nature. It is how we evolved, it is how we survived. We are here because our ancestors formed tightly connected groups of people, with common purpose, common culture, common language, and common belief systems.
Do you know why so many people continue to deny climate change and fight against climate mitigation efforts? Because it's what their tribe tells them to do. They are being told by the members of their tribe that they respect and admire that climate change is a hoax perpetuated by an enemy tribe. They're being told that climate mitigation efforts are an attack on their culture, their way of life, and they're being told this by bad actors who deliberately use people's tribal nature against them, to manipulate the people into supporting them and their interests. We need to use culture for progress, so that it can't be weaponized against progress.
The sooner we shit-can the rational economic man model and start seeing people for what they really are: social beings who are highly motivated by emotions and passions, and the sooner we recognize the importance of culture and group identity, the closer we'll be to an actual solution.
Rupert Murdoch can't die fast enough for this reason. But likely another shit-weasel will just step in and replace him.
You hear that Randy? You hear that? (What Mister Lahey?) Shit weasels, shit weasels all the way down.
I can't think of another entity that has done more harm to the world than the Murdoch media empire. Generations to come will reap what that family has sewn in divisiveness and tribal hate/fear/greed.
I hope they pay. No dollar amount will suffice. A different type of payment.
Permanently Deleted
But the thing I really take issue with is this continued narrative that humans are fully atomized individuals.
The Century of the Self.
The Rugged Individual.
The Me Generation.
I hate all of it... Seems we forgot "No man is an island."
But the shareholders want to see the line go up now!
Damages for who?
Someone else will get suckered into paying for it, I'll get to keep MY money and the problem will be fixed.
Now, if the government is willing to pay me billions to fix it, I might be interested... /S
That's literally it, except for the part where they even care that the problem even gets fixed at all.
Investors/Rich people: "I'll be dead, I don't care. I will make tons of money until the day I die."
Damages?
More like gross income for a smart, proactive company.
All this spending to repair damages and save lives is the biggest revenue opportunity of the century.
Climate change is an opportunity, not a problem, it could make you rich if you work hard enough.
/s
"There's a lot of money to be made with the end of the world."
Whom*
But, seriously: it's great that we know the names of these assclowns with that sort of money and where they are, right? I've always wanted to grab one of those signs that they put on schools & clinics: "Heroes work here" and pop it proudly on a mobile guillotine rig. Simply showing up might be all the incentive needed. 🤷🏼♂️
The other half of “for whom” is what parts of the world. Does it cost anything if the impact is felt by people who can’t do anything about it, in a cold world where no one cares to help?
I think we are every year getting small sneak peeks of what's to come and we still ignore the warnings nature is giving us and we are strictly focused on the short term growth.
Just look what just happened in Dubai, they had 256mm of rain in one day, while their annual rain rate is 96. That's 2.5x more than the annual in just one day. And I am sure this caused a lot of financial damage to businesses and also the government
Perhaps they exaggerated artificial rainstorms 🤷♂️ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dubai-rain-cloud-seeding-heat-weather/
One estimate of a solar geoengineering program's cost was $2.5 billion per year. Well within the national budget of many countries that would be significantly impacted by climate change. Presumably at some point one of them will just unilaterally give it a try.
while both highly uncertain and ambitious, would be technically possible from an engineering perspective
Doesn’t mean it works
If we reach the trillions-of-dollars-of-climate-damage state then I'm sure they'll try anyway.
Would be nice if we could have some research into the subject done before then. A pity every time tests are proposed the reaction is "no, that'll only encourage more fossil fuel usage!"
If people have the space and can afford solar on their home, it is a big win as it cuts out the middleman, gives you all the control, and pays for itself. Waiting for government to do the right thing looks like a lost cause right now, but if everyone who could, took the financial hit and put in solar and used nothing but electricity for everything including their car, we would make a dent in carbon output. Those who own homes are the wealthy and really should be doing more than waiting for the government. Not going to happen of course as most are in the same headspace as the government with the pain of climate change just not enough yet to justify the spend. Businesses should be doing the same. Local power on every building will mean less demand on the grid and all the infrastructure upgrades needed to transmit power even if just from green solar farms. Local generation cuts out a lot of infrastructure.
Externalized costs! Governments need to be the ones to enforce it, because otherwise the people paying aren't the ones benefiting.
But not applicable for this election cycle, so nothing will get done.
Ha ha. I'm leaving all the problems for future me to solve. The stupid fucker falls for it every time.
Higher costs just mean someone will make more money. The system works as designed.
It's all an elaborate ploy to make everyone live on Mars so Elon can become king of a planet.
People expecting the bourgeosie to simply "do the right thing" when presented with clear evidence is pure Utopianism, and betrays an utter lack of understanding with regards to class dynamics and Capitalism in general.
Climate Change must be tackled without regard for the consent of the bourgeoisie.
Utopianism is only used when leftists want a thing, otherwise it's just "Good Business Sense™"
:(
No, Utopianism is when leftists think that you can just convince the ruling class to act nicer because it's the right thing to do. There's no materialism in that, and will just repeat the failures of the Owenites.
Actual change comes from force, which is why strikes are so effective. That has materialist analysis, harm the profits and concessions follow.
6 times the damages for WHO, though? Not the rich...
Yeah, but the leaders that can make the change today won't be alive then. So why would they care?
Line go up
Temp go up