Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Missing Climate Goals Could Cost the World $20 Trillion (technologyreview.com) 219

An anonymous reader shares a report: There are trillions of reasons for the world to prevent temperatures from rising more than 1.5C, the aspirational target laid out in the Paris climate agreement, according to a new study. If nations took the necessary actions to meet that goal, rather than the increasingly discussed 2C objective, there's a 60 percent chance it would save the world more than $20 trillion, according to new work published this week in Nature by scientists at Stanford. That figure is far higher than what most experts think it will cost to cut emissions enough to achieve the 1.5C target. Indeed, one study put the price tag in the hundreds of billions of dollars. If temperatures rise by 3C, it will knock out an additional 5 percent of GDP. That's the entire planet's GDP.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Missing Climate Goals Could Cost the World $20 Trillion

Comments Filter:
  • Eh.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NettiWelho ( 1147351 ) on Thursday May 24, 2018 @11:04AM (#56666278)
    Wouldn't cutting emissions 40% - 60% in the first world cause hundreds of millions or even billions of deaths in places dependent on western aid? Or is that part of the plan?
    • by Muros ( 1167213 )

      Wouldn't cutting emissions 40% - 60% in the first world cause hundreds of millions or even billions of deaths in places dependent on western aid? Or is that part of the plan?

      Given that less than 0.005% of global economic output is spent on food aid, that is highly doubtful.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24, 2018 @11:07AM (#56666300)

    This commentary published by The Wall Street Journal, written by Fred Singer, claims that warming (and therefore greenhouse gas emissions) has no effect on global sea level rise. Although Singer concedes the physical fact that water expands as its temperature increases, he claims that this process must be offset by growth of Antarctic ice weasels.

    Scientists who reviewed this opinion piece explained that it is contradicted by a wealth of data and research. Singer bases his conclusion entirely on a cherry-picked comparison of sea level rise 1915-1945 and a single study published in 1990, claiming a lack of accelerating sea level rise despite continued warming. But in fact, modern research utilizing all available data clearly indicates that sea level rise has accelerated, and is unambiguously the result of human-caused global warming.

  • by I'm New Around Here ( 1154723 ) on Thursday May 24, 2018 @11:17AM (#56666356)

    Who had them last? Did Trump misplace them? Has anyone checked Hillary's servers?

    C'mon people. Those things are very expensive.

  • by JMJimmy ( 2036122 ) on Thursday May 24, 2018 @11:18AM (#56666370)

    $20 trillion is a lot of jobs created and with more people dying from the effects of climate change that could really boost wages /s

    • by slew ( 2918 )

      $20 trillion is a lot of jobs created and with more people dying from the effects of climate change that could really boost wages /s

      Don't worry, because in the future most people will be on Universal Basic Income by then because jobs will be scarce.
      There's no reason to boost wages, only people who want to work will work, because they don't have to work because...
      </sarcasm>

  • Maybe the costs could vastly exceed 20 trillion if we have to relocate or rebuild all cities affected by 10m of vertical ocean rise. Maybe it could cost the world 20 trillion dollars short term. But that's at least two quarters away or someone else's problem so it's completely unimportant. #CEOlogic.
  • by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Thursday May 24, 2018 @11:22AM (#56666410) Journal

    I haven't looked into this particular analysis at all, but this is exactly what we should be doing. Rather than making arguments that humans suck and are destroying life-giving Gaia, or trying to scare people with horror stories of runway warming, we should be carefully, rationally, constructing the best possible estimates of the cost of global warming under various scenarios, and then comparing them with the best possible estimates of the cost of various mitigation strategies, including not only cutting carbon emissions (which requires a sub-field of analyses to figure out the best and least impactful way to motivate cutting of carbon production) but also schemes to recapture carbon and schemes to directly cool the planet's climate other ways, such as orbital sunscreens to reduce insolation. And at the same time we should continue investing in climate and economic modeling to refine the estimates.

    And we should act on the strategy that produces the best outcome, according to those estimates, even as we continue working to revise the estimates -- and adjust the strategy aprpropriately, in cautious, incremental steps.

    This is the rational, Bayesian approach to the problem. And it's the right approach even in the (extremely unlikely) case that the warming isn't anthropogenic, or even if the planet isn't really even warming! Act on the best information you have, cautiously and adjusting for your level of confidence in that information, and keep working to get better information and adjust your approach accordingly. This is rational, logical, and the approach most likely to yield the most favorable outcomes. "Most likely" and "most favorable" are key words; there are no guarantees, but maximizing the probability of good outcomes is the the best way forward.

    • Do you think any of this will matter to people living paycheck to paycheck or off of credit cards? We are a whole country of marshmallow test failures....
      https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/22/federal-reserve-emergency-expense-economic-survey
    • That argument has been made numerous times when discussing numerous different problems, including one that most people here are familiar with - technical debt in software and systems development.

      The issue is the same in both cases. Greedy assholes know that the consequences won't come until after they're gone, so they don't want to spend any of their money now to prevent needing to spend far more money in the future.
    • by Jodka ( 520060 )

      from parent:

      ...we should be carefully, rationally, constructing the best possible estimates of the cost of global warming under various scenarios

      from Bjorn Lomborg [lomborg.com]:

      A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The problem is that there is no "we". There are a bunch of different countries, states, towns, individuals. There are corporations and politicians.

      Climate change affects them all differently. Some stand to gain from it, most will lose to some extent but the amount varies hugely. Half of them will be dead before it really kicks in.

      The only way to solve this is to make a high level decision to do it and then make doing it the cheapest option for everyone. It's a little bit authoritarian perhaps, but there doe

    • Because the only thing more accurate than climate models are economic models!
  • Jurassic Climate (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zorro ( 15797 ) on Thursday May 24, 2018 @11:24AM (#56666426)

    Mean atmospheric O2 - 130 % of modern level.
    Mean atmospheric CO2 content - . 1950 ppm. 7 times pre-industrial level.
    Mean surface temperature - 16.5 C. 3 C above modern level.

    I HATE cold weather. I would say this would be a better climate to live in.

    • Except sea/ocean levels would be drastically different, millions would not think it's a better climate to live in.
      • Yeah will millions only turns out to be a tiny percentage doesn't it?
      • by Zorro ( 15797 )

        Except sea/ocean levels would be drastically different, millions would not think it's a better climate to live in.

        No one will miss California and Florida.

    • Coastal real estate is probably worth $125+ trillion. And that doesn't include cost of dealing with migratory pressures, fighting wars over resources etc.

      Then there's how much people would pay to avoid that misery ie quality of life value.

      $20 trillion seems pretty low to me.

      Here's how they calculated it though:
      http://sci-hub.tw/https://www.... [sci-hub.tw]

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I hate hot weather.

    • I HATE cold weather. I would say this would be a better climate to live in.

      The climate we live in isn't in question. The industry and civilisations we have built around assumptions on climate in specific areas are. No one is complaining that it may be a few degrees warmer outside. They are complaining that they need to relocate crops, that cities will flood, and that areas which were used to collect water may not receive any.

  • by TomGreenhaw ( 929233 ) on Thursday May 24, 2018 @11:25AM (#56666438)
    The fossil fuel industry and the politicians in their stranglehold for campaign money don't care about the cost everyone has to pay. They care not a whit about the voters and customers yet to be born.
    • The fossil fuel industry and the politicians in their stranglehold for campaign money don't care about the cost everyone has to pay. They care not a whit about the voters and customers yet to be born.

      Quite so. And the "common man" doesn't care all that much about voters and customers yet to be born either.

  • "Could" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mi ( 197448 )

    Missing Climate Goals Could Cost the World $20 Trillion

    "Could" is the keyword here... Makes the entire statement completely unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.

    15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

    • Re:"Could" (Score:4, Insightful)

      by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Thursday May 24, 2018 @12:03PM (#56666734)

      Missing Climate Goals Could Cost the World $20 Trillion

      "Could" is the keyword here... Makes the entire statement completely unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.

      No, it makes it a scientific prediction, one backed by rigorous and proper study and validated by peer review.

      They aren't just pulling $20 trillion and 60% out of their ass. They have a paper where they show how they derive those figures and justify their assumptions. If you want to falsify their statement there's actually a straightforward process to do so. Read their paper to see where those figures came from, find a calculation that's incorrect, a cost they misprojected, an assumption that's unjustified, or some other way in which you can show their results to be false.

      Don't just blithely declaring any scientific finding you don't like to be "completely unfalsifiable and thus unscientific".

      • by mi ( 197448 )

        They aren't just pulling $20 trillion and 60% out of their ass

        Then they should've said "Will". Saying "could" makes the statement just what I said, unfalsifiable. And that in turn makes in unscientific.

        Read their paper

        I read the title, which is unscientific. Thank you.

        Don't just blithely declaring any scientific finding you don't like to be "completely unfalsifiable and thus unscientific"

        Not all the findings I dislike are unscientific. But this one is.

        • They aren't just pulling $20 trillion and 60% out of their ass

          Then they should've said "Will". Saying "could" makes the statement just what I said, unfalsifiable. And that in turn makes in unscientific.

          So you could then criticize them for making an authoritative prediction they could not possibly justify.

          'Will' vs 'Could' has nothing to do with falsifiability or scientificness, it's scientific and falsifiable because their "could" is justified with research.

          • You cannot prove a negative.

            'Could' is a weasel word.

          • by mi ( 197448 )

            'Will' vs 'Could' has nothing to do with falsifiability

            Wrong. "Will" is falsifiable. "Could" is not.

            Because, whether a prediction comes to pass or not, "could" is still true — not falsifiable [wikipedia.org]. The "will", on the other hand, would be wrong — and is therefor falsifiable. Not necessarily true — for it may still end up falsified, but falsifiable.

            or scientificness

            Being falsifiable is a requirement for being scientific.

            their "could" is justified with research

            Research does not make a statement fa

            • 'Will' vs 'Could' has nothing to do with falsifiability

              Wrong. "Will" is falsifiable. "Could" is not.

              Except when someone says "will" involving climate change, then you scream "a prediction isn't falsifiable!".

              Being falsifiable is a requirement for being scientific.

              So you think polling science exists? I'd say a lot of what 538 does qualifies as science, despite not going through the full scientific process, and they almost exclusively work in probabilistic outcomes. They also routinely falsify the claims of other polling outfits by demonstrating their errors.

              As for this research it has plenty of falsifiable aspects, in fact there's two falsifiable statements in

            • by Layzej ( 1976930 )

              Wrong. "Will" is falsifiable. "Could" is not.

              Read the paper. It gives a probability density function. A result outside the PDF would falsify the paper. Of course, what’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              If someone tells you that you could be injured badly if you don't put on your seatbelt, do you ignore them because it's not falsifiable?

    • Re:"Could" (Score:4, Insightful)

      by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Thursday May 24, 2018 @12:09PM (#56666792) Journal

      Missing Climate Goals Could Cost the World $20 Trillion

      "Could" is the keyword here... Makes the entire statement completely unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.

      15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

      And you could die if you get into a high-speed auto accident while not wearing a seat belt. Or you could live. But your odds are better if you wear the seat belt.

      If you're going to dismiss any argument that isn't based on ironclad guarantees, you can't predict much of anything. The future is unknown. Accept it. The best we can do is maximize the likelihood of good outcomes.

    • by novakyu ( 636495 )

      And 100 minutes could save you 100% or more on car insurance!

  • Sure, sure. You want to motivate the people with the money and power to do something about this? Tell them they'll lose money and power if they don't. Aspects of humanity like this are what make me feel like our entire species just plain sucks; you can't get any action out of people with "this is the right thing to do", you have to frame it as "this is what's in it for you if you do this".
    • by Shotgun ( 30919 )

      It must be fun to still be that naive.

      There is a sandwich on the table. Just enough food to keep either you or I alive. Which one of us sucks for not being the one that gets to eat it?

      We're trapped on a spaceship. Just enough air for one of us to live. Are you going to do the "right thing" and space yourself to save me?

      Money is nothing more than an accounting method for tracking resources. We can either expend resources now, or maybe expend them in the distant future. In neither case this there a mora

      • It must be fun to be so arrogant that you really think you Know It All.

        People have plenty of bodyfat to survive on. We share the sandwich. Now we're only both a little hungry, and we're not enemies.

        We both limit our physical activity, try to nap, until rescue arrives; somehow we co-operate to find a way for both to survive.

        We can continue to think only so far ahead as next quarters' profits, and perhaps there won't be a future for anyone, or we can stop acting and thinking like animals, operating o
        • by Shotgun ( 30919 )

          I must also be fun to think that there are not situations where multiple people that have interests that are irrevocably and diametrically opposed, where for either to win, one must lose.

  • I remember my old tome Fundamentals of Astronautics. An invaluable reference. Authors include guys like von Braun, Bussard, Tsien, and Phil Bono - legendary geniuses in the field all of them. I also remember the chapter using the same analytical techniques for the rockets being used as diviners of economic costs of said rockets. It struck me as odd and kind of silly - sad even - that such smart people were so confounded by economics. All their rocket science is as good today as it was then; but these guys w

  • Even if America remained part of Paris accord, it would not matter. The reason is that China, and other nations are growing their emissions well beyond what the entire west generates. Until additional new coal plants are stopped, and ideally, all fossil fuel plants, we we're going to lose. And China is adding 700 new coal plants just over the next couple of years.
    • China is adding 700 new coal plants just over the next couple of years.

      Source? I seem to recall that they announced a moratorium on new coal plants.

    • And yet America still produces twice as much CO2 per person. You are so far out in front no one will ever catch up.
      Your 700 coal plants lies have been pointed out numerous times Windy.
  • At one end of the climate science buffet we have the reliable, traditional cuisine: that CO2 and methane (and water vapour) function as greenhouse gasses, that burning an aggregate trillion barrels of fossil fuel is enough to make a difference on a planetary scale, that we are presently in a warming cycle (of what duration, not yet certain), that certain mitigations are already cost-effective (solar roofs in California, minimizing hyper-disposable electronic goods), that the ocean is a carbon sink, and that

  • Modern farming is just a way of converting oil into food.

    It takes 7X more oil energy to bring food to your table than you get from eating it.

    At the turn of the 19th century more than 9 out of 10 people were involved in farming and feeding themselves and the other person. Now, less than 1 percent feed the other 99+% and they use machines powered by oil & coal to do it. Alternative forms of energy do not have the energy density of fossil fuels, and cannot replace them for planting, growing, harvesting,

  • America, at least, is locked in a battle between climate change people and deniers. Much of the heat of the battle is being generated by the shared assumption of most of the battling parties that the government must be parsimonius and whatever taxes or restraints are applied will be hard on poor people or it will be hard on rich oil business people.

    Lets consider an approach that is 90 degrees different for both parties. The given fact is we must substantially reduce our oil use. I propose we make engaging i

"You can't get very far in this world without your dossier being there first." -- Arthur Miller

Working...