"But we've lacked the political will to do so."
April 16, 2020 10:52 AM Subscribe
A research paper published this week in Nature has estimated the total cost of failing to meet the Paris Agreement of keeping global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius: $150 trillion to as much as $792 trillion by the end of the century.
Meanwhile, the Climate Action Tracker coalition estimates that even a return to the Paris Agreement commitments may still land the world at 3 degrees of warming:
Joe Biden's Climate Plan Actually Has Teeth
Joe Biden Got Caught Plagiarizing His Climate Change Plan
350.org Candidate Scorecards
Meanwhile, the Climate Action Tracker coalition estimates that even a return to the Paris Agreement commitments may still land the world at 3 degrees of warming:
The Climate Action Tracker (CAT) estimate of the total warming of the aggregate effect of Paris Agreement commitments and of real-world policy shows little change. If all governments achieved their Paris Agreement commitments the world will likely warm 3.0°C—twice the 1.5°C limit they agreed in Paris.In the sphere of contemporary American politics, "Joe Biden still has to fight for the climate vote":
Pretty much all of the Democratic primary candidates embraced similar science-backed climate goals of virtually eliminating fossil fuel emissions by 2050. But with a $1.7 trillion proposed budget, Biden’s climate plan calls for one-tenth of the investment in climate that Sanders’ plan did. Sanders’ plan raised eyebrows for its $16 trillion price tag, but its embrace of a comprehensive Green New Deal won over environmental advocates. Sunrise Movement and 350 Action tell The Verge they’re now looking for at least a $10 trillion climate commitment from Biden.One potential bright spot is Barack Obama indicating a shift in how seriously he is taking climate change:
Sanders will work with Biden on a climate change task force, Sanders announced this week after bowing out of the presidential race and endorsing his former opponent. That move — along with the creation of similar task forces focused on issues including criminal justice reform and immigration — looks like a bid to bring Sanders’ more progressive voters into Biden’s camp.
Obama finally appeared to acknowledge his failure on climate action in an endorsement video for Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for president and his former vice president. The question is if Biden is up to the challenge.Other notes:
Obama said that the U.S. has to re-sign the Paris Agreement, but that it’s only a start. Any climate action has to go well beyond that.
“Science tells us we have to go much further, that it’s time for us to accelerate progress on bold new green initiatives that make our economy a clean energy innovator, save us money, and secure our children’s future,” Obama said in his endorsement.
The initiatives Obama led were not that bold. In fact, a large part of his energy legacy is the fracking boom across the U.S. In 2018, he took credit for it, telling an audience at Rice University, “that whole, suddenly America’s like the biggest oil producer and the biggest gas that was me, people.”
But the fossil fuel extraction method of choice for the Obama administration emits a shit ton of methane, a greenhouse gas with 84 times the warming power of carbon over 20 years. Obama wanted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, but that was never gonna be enough to avert the worst impacts of climate change. Science now shows that, by 2030, the world has to cut its emissions by nearly half the levels they were in 2010 with developed countries like the U.S.—the biggest carbon polluter—doing even more.
The details of Obama’s plans weren’t enough to get us out of this mess. Trump’s plans never involved solving climate change. Obama, however, is asking voters to put their faith in Biden to get it done.
Based on the little I know and the judgements of sources I trust, I think a substantial and costly investment to mitigate climate change is crucial.
But the Nature article provides virually zero information to nonexperts. "$150 trillion to as much as $792 trillion by the end of the century" means... what? Essentially "a really big scary number that will allow us to think that whatever we already think is the right thing to think."
For context: 2019 world GDP was about $86 trillion. That will (hopefully) continue to grow substantially over coming decades. The article says that they use a "reference level [of] 1.6% of GDP at a 2.62 °C warming in 2100. ... [with] changes in economic damage under different uncertainties ... being four to five times, two to four times, and less than two times, respectively." GDP growth is often a few percent a year in developed countries and can be much higher in flourishing developing countries, so the economic costs of climate change are just offsetting a few years of growth, potentially, which is trivial over 80 years.
More informed commentary welcome, but my impression is that the aggregate economic consequences of climate change are likely to be moderate. But the human consequences could very well be catastrophic because they will be neither aggregate (they will fall far more on poor Bangledeshi farmers than accountants in Toronto) nor mostly economic.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:37 AM on April 16, 2020 [3 favorites]
But the Nature article provides virually zero information to nonexperts. "$150 trillion to as much as $792 trillion by the end of the century" means... what? Essentially "a really big scary number that will allow us to think that whatever we already think is the right thing to think."
For context: 2019 world GDP was about $86 trillion. That will (hopefully) continue to grow substantially over coming decades. The article says that they use a "reference level [of] 1.6% of GDP at a 2.62 °C warming in 2100. ... [with] changes in economic damage under different uncertainties ... being four to five times, two to four times, and less than two times, respectively." GDP growth is often a few percent a year in developed countries and can be much higher in flourishing developing countries, so the economic costs of climate change are just offsetting a few years of growth, potentially, which is trivial over 80 years.
More informed commentary welcome, but my impression is that the aggregate economic consequences of climate change are likely to be moderate. But the human consequences could very well be catastrophic because they will be neither aggregate (they will fall far more on poor Bangledeshi farmers than accountants in Toronto) nor mostly economic.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:37 AM on April 16, 2020 [3 favorites]
I agree with Mr.Know-it-some. These numbers are much, much smaller than I would have thought. I'm kind of shocked.
I mean, it certainly demonstrates the cost of doing nothing and makes it clear that mitigating climate change can be net beneficial to the world economy (contra Republican talking points). But I had always imagined it as a global-economy-crushing event.
I also agree that the potential human costs would represent a historic tragedy, particularly since we know how to avoid them. Mass murder, really.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:50 AM on April 16, 2020
I mean, it certainly demonstrates the cost of doing nothing and makes it clear that mitigating climate change can be net beneficial to the world economy (contra Republican talking points). But I had always imagined it as a global-economy-crushing event.
I also agree that the potential human costs would represent a historic tragedy, particularly since we know how to avoid them. Mass murder, really.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:50 AM on April 16, 2020
Not the Green New Deal, but Inslee's climate team are starting to lobby Biden and congressional Dems on climate policy, distilling Warren's and Inslee's plans into the Evergreen Collaborative. Overview.
posted by SoundInhabitant at 11:52 AM on April 16, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by SoundInhabitant at 11:52 AM on April 16, 2020 [3 favorites]
More informed commentary welcome, but my impression is that the aggregate economic consequences of climate change are likely to be moderate. But the human consequences could very well be catastrophic because they will be neither aggregate (they will fall far more on poor Bangledeshi farmers than accountants in Toronto) nor mostly economic.
---
I mean, it certainly demonstrates the cost of doing nothing and makes it clear that mitigating climate change can be net beneficial to the world economy (contra Republican talking points). But I had always imagined it as a global-economy-crushing event.
At 3 degrees of warming, climate change's economic consequences alone are massive. At $792 trillion, climate change would cost us ten times the gross world product we have today. Worse yet, every degree of warming GDP growth by 1%. This is the very definition of global-economy-crushing.
Inundation, severe weather events, and just regular ol' hot weather will lead to tens (if not hundreds) of millions of climate refugees in just the next 30 years; the American locations impacted by inundation alone will drown places like New York City, most of Florida, and Los Angeles. Wildfires, dramatically increased in both frequency and intensity, will smother Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area in choking ash and smoke.
Those are three of the largest and most significant economic centers in not just America, but the world. The economic consequences shouldn't be understated.
Even for Toronto accountants, they will deal with increasingly more severe polar vortices (vortexes?) due to global warming's malformation of the polar jet stream. At 3 degrees of warming, staple crop yields fall at least 30%. And even accountants have to eat~
Climate change will (and already has) hit Bangladeshi farmers hardest, but wealth and privilege will only somewhat delay the inevitable.
And like both of you said, we're not even talking about the massive human consequences.
posted by Ouverture at 12:14 PM on April 16, 2020 [7 favorites]
---
I mean, it certainly demonstrates the cost of doing nothing and makes it clear that mitigating climate change can be net beneficial to the world economy (contra Republican talking points). But I had always imagined it as a global-economy-crushing event.
At 3 degrees of warming, climate change's economic consequences alone are massive. At $792 trillion, climate change would cost us ten times the gross world product we have today. Worse yet, every degree of warming GDP growth by 1%. This is the very definition of global-economy-crushing.
Inundation, severe weather events, and just regular ol' hot weather will lead to tens (if not hundreds) of millions of climate refugees in just the next 30 years; the American locations impacted by inundation alone will drown places like New York City, most of Florida, and Los Angeles. Wildfires, dramatically increased in both frequency and intensity, will smother Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area in choking ash and smoke.
Those are three of the largest and most significant economic centers in not just America, but the world. The economic consequences shouldn't be understated.
Even for Toronto accountants, they will deal with increasingly more severe polar vortices (vortexes?) due to global warming's malformation of the polar jet stream. At 3 degrees of warming, staple crop yields fall at least 30%. And even accountants have to eat~
Climate change will (and already has) hit Bangladeshi farmers hardest, but wealth and privilege will only somewhat delay the inevitable.
And like both of you said, we're not even talking about the massive human consequences.
posted by Ouverture at 12:14 PM on April 16, 2020 [7 favorites]
At $792 trillion, climate change would cost us ten times the gross world product we have today.
Am I misreading? I think it’s $792 trillion over 80 years.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:48 PM on April 16, 2020 [3 favorites]
Am I misreading? I think it’s $792 trillion over 80 years.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:48 PM on April 16, 2020 [3 favorites]
Ouverture,
You're missing that this cost and damage is going to be over decades, it's not all at once. That was Mr.Know-it-some's point: spread over that time, when compared to current world GDP and even low growth rates, it's surprisingly not that much. Similarly, the dangers from changing climate you mention won't hit all at once, but will unfold over time. Time in which nations aren't just going to sit back and watch their economic centers be destroyed as you describe.
This has always been the problem with trying to liken climate change to visions of the Apocalypse: it's not a singular, terrible event. The effects will hit relatively slowly in terms of human timeframes, at least slow enough that the people denying and dragging their feet can keep denying and dragging their feet, or do just enough mitigation to stave off destruction of important areas (while allowing areas they don't deem "important" to suffer as they will).
This is the second problem with trying to make climate change into a morality tale: it won't be "humanity" reaping what it has sown. The actual people and companies and countries who have caused the problems are rich and powerful enough to probably arrange to save their own asses. It's going to be the rest, the "poor Bangledeshi farmers" mentioned above, who suffer the brunt of it. Even in rich countries like the US, it's already poorer places like the Gulf Coast that are being left to rot.
In his latest two books William Gibson has the concept of "the Jackpot", a term people in the future use for the various interrelated environmental, economic, political, and social problems and crises that unfolded over a century to badly damage the world. I think that's a pretty useful concept for what's going to happen. I also think the future he describes in those books, where the world that emerges from the Jackpot from the current one is controlled by the plutocrats and authoritarians who had the means to survive that dark period, is sadly probably accurate too.
posted by star gentle uterus at 3:06 PM on April 16, 2020 [11 favorites]
You're missing that this cost and damage is going to be over decades, it's not all at once. That was Mr.Know-it-some's point: spread over that time, when compared to current world GDP and even low growth rates, it's surprisingly not that much. Similarly, the dangers from changing climate you mention won't hit all at once, but will unfold over time. Time in which nations aren't just going to sit back and watch their economic centers be destroyed as you describe.
This has always been the problem with trying to liken climate change to visions of the Apocalypse: it's not a singular, terrible event. The effects will hit relatively slowly in terms of human timeframes, at least slow enough that the people denying and dragging their feet can keep denying and dragging their feet, or do just enough mitigation to stave off destruction of important areas (while allowing areas they don't deem "important" to suffer as they will).
This is the second problem with trying to make climate change into a morality tale: it won't be "humanity" reaping what it has sown. The actual people and companies and countries who have caused the problems are rich and powerful enough to probably arrange to save their own asses. It's going to be the rest, the "poor Bangledeshi farmers" mentioned above, who suffer the brunt of it. Even in rich countries like the US, it's already poorer places like the Gulf Coast that are being left to rot.
In his latest two books William Gibson has the concept of "the Jackpot", a term people in the future use for the various interrelated environmental, economic, political, and social problems and crises that unfolded over a century to badly damage the world. I think that's a pretty useful concept for what's going to happen. I also think the future he describes in those books, where the world that emerges from the Jackpot from the current one is controlled by the plutocrats and authoritarians who had the means to survive that dark period, is sadly probably accurate too.
posted by star gentle uterus at 3:06 PM on April 16, 2020 [11 favorites]
But the Nature article provides virually zero information to nonexperts. "$150 trillion to as much as $792 trillion by the end of the century" means... what? Essentially "a really big scary number that will allow us to think that whatever we already think is the right thing to think."
I think it's good questions about this rhetoric get asked, but why only now? BIG SCARY SPENDING NUMBERS constantly get invoked in debates about everything from healthcare, to stimulus, to infrastructure without any reference to (a) the time period over which the spending occurs, (b) the relationship of the spending to the overall size of the economy, (c) the cost of not spending the BIG SCARY NUMBER, or (d) the benefits accrued from the spending. Now we are looking at a BIG SCARY NUMBER for the cost of not spending a SMALLER BUT STILL BIG SOUNDING NUMBER, and we are asking for context?
I'm not trying to pick on people. I agree we should always look at context for these numbers. However, we should start when BIG SCARY NUMBERS are invoked to justify not doing something, because, at least in our society, BIG SCARY numbers usually are used to scare people away from a sensible solution that would improve the lives of the majority at the expense of a narrow interest or the prejudices of certain segments of the public.
In this case, the monetary cost of doing nothing far outweighs the costs that would be incurred to address climate change.
posted by eagles123 at 4:11 PM on April 16, 2020 [2 favorites]
I think it's good questions about this rhetoric get asked, but why only now? BIG SCARY SPENDING NUMBERS constantly get invoked in debates about everything from healthcare, to stimulus, to infrastructure without any reference to (a) the time period over which the spending occurs, (b) the relationship of the spending to the overall size of the economy, (c) the cost of not spending the BIG SCARY NUMBER, or (d) the benefits accrued from the spending. Now we are looking at a BIG SCARY NUMBER for the cost of not spending a SMALLER BUT STILL BIG SOUNDING NUMBER, and we are asking for context?
I'm not trying to pick on people. I agree we should always look at context for these numbers. However, we should start when BIG SCARY NUMBERS are invoked to justify not doing something, because, at least in our society, BIG SCARY numbers usually are used to scare people away from a sensible solution that would improve the lives of the majority at the expense of a narrow interest or the prejudices of certain segments of the public.
In this case, the monetary cost of doing nothing far outweighs the costs that would be incurred to address climate change.
posted by eagles123 at 4:11 PM on April 16, 2020 [2 favorites]
BIG SCARY NUMBERSIn banking, with very few exceptions, interest rates are always required to be reported as an annual percentage. Car dealers can't lure you in with rates of just 0.5%, and then say, oh yeah, that's weekly.
I've sometimes thought we need a similar norm (a law would be...constitutionally problematic) for political numbers. Expect that all numbers in political debates should be stated in per-year costs and benefits. We, as a society, would have to believe that anyone stating numbers other than on a per-year basis is deliberately trying to deceive.
In this case, we could rewrite the first sentence of the FPP as
[...]the total cost of failing to meet the Paris Agreement of keeping global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius: $2 trillion to as much as $10 trillion per year for the next 80 yearsposted by Hatashran at 5:37 PM on April 16, 2020
Rereading my post, I realize that I should clarify: I'm not accusing this post of being deceptive. We don't have the norm I want, so using non-annual numbers isn't deceptive. It's just something I'd like to see.
posted by Hatashran at 5:49 PM on April 16, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Hatashran at 5:49 PM on April 16, 2020 [1 favorite]
« Older Disaster Capitalism: Pandemic Edition | "Did someone say my name?" "Who are you?" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by lalochezia at 11:17 AM on April 16, 2020 [3 favorites]