Economics of climate change croaking cassandra gas company

##########

I’ve written a few posts here about the economics of climate change, and of the sorts of goals the government proposes to adopt in response. On the one hand, OECD and IPCC work has suggested that, if anything, the New Zealand economy in aggregate is likely to benefit a bit from warming (albeit with sectoral and regional ups and downs – the sort of thing that is a normal part of economic life). And, on the other hand, the government’s own modelling, undertaken by NZIER, suggests a very high real economic cost to New Zealanders from pursuing a net-zero target.

Some aspects of our economy may see slight near-term improvements in a modestly warmer world. static electricity jokes However, the continued warming that is projected to occur without substantial and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions is expected to cause substantial net damage to the U.S. economy throughout this century, especially in the absence of increased adaptation efforts. e85 gas stations in iowa With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century—more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states.

And what about the size of the US economy at the end of the century? If we assume very conservative numbers (no population growth and perhaps 1 per cent per annum productivity growth) then in real terms an economy of US $19.4 trillion in 2017 would be one of about $44 trillion per annum. If the real economic costs of climate change are “hundred of billions of dollars per annum” by the end of the century that must mean a number less than one trillion dollars. In other words, the scary headline reduces to a cost that is, at most, 2 per cent of GDP. Not nothing. But it is (a) long time in the future – discounted back to today at any reasonable discount rate, it will be equivalent to a lot less than 2 per cent of GDP, and (b) the discussion on the economic impact in the summary does not mention at all the potential economic costs of policy measures to accelerate the reduction in emissions already underway. electricity nightcore lyrics Those costs are likely to be materially smaller than those facing New Zealand (the 10 to 22 per cent of GDP estimate from the government’s NZIER modelling, falling most heavily on the poorest) but they aren’t likely to be trivial either.

Whatever the case for doing something dramatic, and potentially quite economically costly, on climate change, it doesn’t seem reasonable or sensible to base any such argument on the economic consequences for rich countries of doing nothing. It is easy to produce big dollar numbers far enough into the future, but no credible modelling I’ve heard of suggests that climate change is a material long-term economic threat to existing advanced economies – and certainly not to New Zealand.

There is a YouTube lecture by a Nobel prize winning physicist who made the point that the accuracy of the measurements of temperature were suspect. gas 10 ethanol He is a climate change skeptic and he convincingly said that climate change is now treated more like a religion than science. “” When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything. “”― G.K. Chesterton

It is an important subject that deserves dispassionate(secular) discussion. types of electricity consumers The world’s climate has changed rapidly in the past with no human causes and we know there has been a close correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and average temperatures. Ever increasing CO2 emissions are inevitable so long as the developing world continues to develop. So it is probable our climate will change – to what extent and how fast is difficult to predict (that is where my skepicism kicks in). There is no disputing that ice sheets lifting off land and floating in the ocean would mean instant changes of sea level (however long it took the ice bergs to melt).

There are a number of intelligent climate change skeptical scientists but the clear majority of scientists are convinced there is a serious issue so our govt ought to listen to them and then determine what is the most intelligent response. gas and supply If that includes aiming to reduce our carbon emissions then they should be involving economists – the experts in how to share scarce resources.

You are complacent saying “US emissions had already peaked”; firstly because the rest of the world hasn’t and secondly emissions are cumulative, It will take millenia for released CO2 to be recapured by natural processes so even a single match burning will add to the problem. The theory is CO2 released now will be warming the world to a new temperature equilibrium over many years. If all humans died tomorrow the earth will continue to warm and sea level will increase. gas stoichiometry practice sheet That is why many scientists are worried despite evidence of sea level changes in millimetres and the number of days we wipe ice off the family car reducing each year.

Jacinda Ardern mentioned climate change as her priority after child poverty. I will be happier with our govt when it starts facing up to and explaining: “” … own modelling, undertaken by NZIER, suggests a very high real economic cost to New Zealanders from pursuing a net-zero target “” and giving a climate change response to the proposed multi-billion dollar sea-level stadium, etc.

2. “”Access to international emissions permits reduces the amount that domestic abatement contributes to meeting a target, but also reduces the economic costs to firms and households. “” Surely this doesn’t mean zero sin/carbon – it means paying other countries to be permitted to keep emitting carbon (there is no solution for aircraft fuel and our waste tips for example). So ‘Zero Carbon’ ought to be rephrased as say 20% carbon if we were to be honest.

3. “”This target is a 100% reduction on 1990 emissions, after taking into account net sequestration”” The net sequestration presumably is growing forests – this can only be done but only once. It is like balancing your household budget by progressively selling the family silver. I’m troubled by the 100% reduction on 1990 emissions; does it mean 100% reduction or in other words no emissions and the date doesn’t matter or is it claiming that we return to 1990 emissions or half of 1990 emissions? 1990 is not a good base date just because that is when the problem became widely acknowledged, to get to a good base date we need emissions as pre-Maori arrival because that is when emissions and absorption last balanced.