Climate Change Is Killing the Economy

[Vergent]

http://finance.yahoo...-161728576.html

[WestWind]

Actually, climate change is not killing the economy. If it was, it would be addressed.

The cost of the proposed disaster relief bill is $60 billion. Now obviously, the hurricane was not entirely caused by global warming, since weather disasters have always occurred even prior to global warming. Lets be generous and say that such storms are now occurring twice as frequently as they would without global warming. That means $30 billion of the cost can be attributed to global warming. There are roughly 300 million people in the US, so this makes each person's share of the disaster relief roughly $100. I can't think of any meaningful CO2 reduction initiative that would only cost the average US person $100 a year. And any initiative to reduce CO2 is only going to stop a portion of global warming, not reverse it entirely. Thus the actual savings a year, even given the generous assumption that global warming is 50% responsible for the damage, is less than the $100.

You can certainly argue that there are intangible costs, in human suffering for example, that go beyond the $60 billion. However, these costs do not directly hurt the economy. You can also argue that, eventually, the costs of allowing global warming will exceed the costs of preventing it. That could certainly happen, and when it does I would expect to see the issue addressed.

I'm also not saying we should not address global warming. I'm just saying that, from a strictly economic standpoint which is what the article was about, it presently makes more sense to pay for remediation than for prevention.

[skierinvermont]

Actually, climate change is not killing the economy. If it was, it would be addressed.

The cost of the proposed disaster relief bill is $60 billion. Now obviously, the hurricane was not entirely caused by global warming, since weather disasters have always occurred even prior to global warming. Lets be generous and say that such storms are now occurring twice as frequently as they would without global warming. That means $30 billion of the cost can be attributed to global warming. There are roughly 300 million people in the US, so this makes each person's share of the disaster relief roughly $100. I can't think of any meaningful CO2 reduction initiative that would only cost the average US person $100 a year. And any initiative to reduce CO2 is only going to stop a portion of global warming, not reverse it entirely. Thus the actual savings a year, even given the generous assumption that global warming is 50% responsible for the damage, is less than the $100.

You can certainly argue that there are intangible costs, in human suffering for example, that go beyond the $60 billion. However, these costs do not directly hurt the economy. You can also argue that, eventually, the costs of allowing global warming will exceed the costs of preventing it. That could certainly happen, and when it does I would expect to see the issue addressed.

I'm also not saying we should not address global warming. I'm just saying that, from a strictly economic standpoint which is what the article was about, it presently makes more sense to pay for remediation than for prevention.

2X is extremely generous. There hasn't even been a statistically significant increase yet. 10% would be generous. 10% is the high end of the expected increase in TC frequency by 2100.

A good estimate of change in U.S. TC damage in the U.S. due to climate change would be -5 to +10%, most likely near the middle of that range.

[TerryM]

GDP could permanently drop 2.5% if temperatures increase another 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)

I think the above is far understating the damage that a 2.8C global increase would wreak on the economy. Disaster relief will be high but so will the damage due to drought and heatwaves to the agricultural sector. Russia has halted all wheat exports and we're only at .8C - The damage to corn yields, soybeans, cattle and pork production in the last few years have been substantial, an additional 2C with the prospect of continued climate weirding could have devastating results to the whole sector.

How many heat waves similar to the ones already experienced in France and Russia will be experienced when temperatures have climbed an additional 350%, and what effect will this have on health care, productivity and infrastructure. Remembering hemispheric asymmetry and that land surface temperatures climb far more rapidly than global, I'd assume that migration rather than mitigation will become the preferred response in many Southern States. The costs of keeping the power grid viable with increased AC usage, lower water flow for hydro installations & decreased cooling capacity for nuclear facilities have already risen & manufacturing costs rise rapidly with higher electric costs.

Another aspect to consider is that by the time we've reached 2.8C globally, the government will be spending a lot of money on less carbon intensive transportation schemes, money that might otherwise be spent in maintaining tax breaks for corporations that could be investing in ways that increase the GDP.

At 2.8C globally I'd expect the US economy to be similar to a war time footing, and not necessarily the economy of the winning side. Expenditures for infrastructure repair and upgrades to less carbon intensive systems will be expensive and will be paid for either by increasing taxation or by borrowing at ever higher interest rates - with neither option politically popular, not enough will be spent and the GDP will suffer.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

GDP could permanently drop 2.5% if temperatures increase another 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)

I think the above is far understating the damage that a 2.8C global increase would wreak on the economy. Disaster relief will be high but so will the damage due to drought and heatwaves to the agricultural sector. Russia has halted all wheat exports and we're only at .8C - The damage to corn yields, soybeans, cattle and pork production in the last few years have been substantial, an additional 2C with the prospect of continued climate weirding could have devastating results to the whole sector.

How many heat waves similar to the ones already experienced in France and Russia will be experienced when temperatures have climbed an additional 350%, and what effect will this have on health care, productivity and infrastructure. Remembering hemispheric asymmetry and that land surface temperatures climb far more rapidly than global, I'd assume that migration rather than mitigation will become the preferred response in many Southern States. The costs of keeping the power grid viable with increased AC usage, lower water flow for hydro installations & decreased cooling capacity for nuclear facilities have already risen & manufacturing costs rise rapidly with higher electric costs.

Another aspect to consider is that by the time we've reached 2.8C globally, the government will be spending a lot of money on less carbon intensive transportation schemes, money that might otherwise be spent in maintaining tax breaks for corporations that could be investing in ways that increase the GDP.

At 2.8C globally I'd expect the US economy to be similar to a war time footing, and not necessarily the economy of the winning side. Expenditures for infrastructure repair and upgrades to less carbon intensive systems will be expensive and will be paid for either by increasing taxation or by borrowing at ever higher interest rates - with neither option politically popular, not enough will be spent and the GDP will suffer.

Terry

In WW2 the U.S. was spending 37% of GDP on the military. I imagine the % was even higher in Russia and Germany.

For the math impaired that's 15 times more than 2.5%.

[skierinvermont]

Also Russia's crop yields the last 5 years have been the highest since the collapse of the Soviet Union (which provided large agricultural subsidies). Hard to claim climate change is reducing harvests when harvests are skyrocketing.

It's true that drought years have low yields but in the long run in Russia this may be more than offset by increased land available for farming.

I'm not saying that CC won't reduce harvests, but I'm not convinced by the fact that Russia went from an exporter to an importer. Which I'm not even sure is true.. I think Russia has been an importer for a long time?

EDIT: just checked and I found that Russia is a net food importer and has been for a long time. They are a major grain exporter however. Exports this year are expected to be much smaller, but they will not be a grain importer.

[Vergent]

Also Russia's crop yields the last 5 years have been the highest since the collapse of the Soviet Union (which provided large agricultural subsidies). Hard to claim climate change is reducing harvests when harvests are skyrocketing.

It's true that drought years have low yields but in the long run in Russia this may be more than offset by increased land available for farming.

I'm not saying that CC won't reduce harvests, but I'm not convinced by the fact that Russia went from an exporter to an importer. Which I'm not even sure is true.. I think Russia has been an importer for a long time?

EDIT: just checked and I found that Russia is a net food importer and has been for a long time. They are a major grain exporter however. Exports this year are expected to be much smaller, but they will not be a grain importer.

Just keep making up numbers

Russia Sunflowerseed: Lowest Yield in Almost Ten Years

Russia: Estimated Wheat Yield

Does this graph say what you say it says? If not, you should consider saying less.

http://www.thebioene...gory=13&id=1042

[Vergent]

I think a proper interpretation would be:

Russian wheat yield 2nd lowest in a decade.

[TerryM]

Russia is considering alternatives such as refusing rail access, to another export ban on wheat. In 2010 after the heat wave exports were halted which spiked food prices in the mid-east and Africa, possibly exasperating political uprisings through the area.

An article from 2010:

"We must not allow an increase in domestic prices and must preserve the headcount of our cattle," Mr Putin said as he announced the ban.

Russia, the world's number three wheat exporter last year, has already said that its grain harvest this year will be just 60-65 million tonnes, compared to 97 million tonnes in 2009.

It's this sort of rapid change in agricultural output that is so costly both to the exporting countries and those forced to pay exorbitant prices to feed their populace. As the Arab Spring indicated simply passing the costs on to the consumer can have unwanted consequences.

http://www.telegraph...ban-starts.html

When the US experiences a similar heatwave and is suddenly unable to export corn, wheat or soy, the global political fallout could be expected to be more extreme & with an additional 2C this is not only a certainty, but is liable to be a regular occurrence.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

Just keep making up numbers

Russia: Estimated Wheat Yield

Does this graph say what you say it says? If not, you should consider saying less.

http://www.thebioene...gory=13&id=1042

Who gives a rats ass about sunflower seeds? They produce ~4 million tons of sunflower seeds compared to 60 million tons of wheat and barley.

Your chart of wheat just proves my point. Wheat yield the last 5 years was 2.15 tons per hectare. The previous 5 averaged 1.95. The previous 5*** averaged 1.6 tons per hectare.

Correct me if I am wrong but 2.15 >> 1.95 >> 1.6? Yes or no?

The last 5 have had the highest. Nearly 50% more than the 5 year period ending 10 years ago. Hence "skyrocketing."

I specifically said "highest 5 year period" in my original post. Unlike you I'm not a fan of using single data points to make a point.

Your chart just proves my point.

It's funny.. every time you call me a liar, you end up just proving my point.

[skierinvermont]

I'm not stopping until the posts and Vergent are reinstated or at least there is some explanation. Go ahead and ban me. I've been on this forum for 6 years but this is nonsense.

[nzucker]

I'm not stopping until the posts and Vergent are reinstated or at least there is some explanation. Go ahead and ban me. I've been on this forum for 6 years but this is nonsense.

Why should Vergent be reinstated? He was one of the worst posters in the climate forum. Sheer nonsense all the time.

[skierinvermont]

Why should Vergent be reinstated? He was one of the worst posters in the climate forum. Sheer nonsense all the time.

First of all, because he didn't break any forum rules that I know of (compared to what others have gotten away with for years on this forum).

Second, he has contributed greatly. He has posted many interesting scientific articles to this forum. I don't always agree with all his interpretations, but it is substantive and supported by facts.