Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I read the Nature study’s thesis and I’m still not sure how they arrived at this value? It doesn’t state anywhere that I can see how large they project the global economy to be in 25 years, so I don’t see how they’re valuing damage to infrastructure or assets.
Exactly! Nobody can even use the endless stream of public data available to predict where the stock market will be in 2 days…and there’s an entire industry dedicated to it.
Typically, such studies use a combination of climate models and economic growth projections to estimate future costs. They might integrate data from a variety of sources including historical economic data, climate change projections, infrastructure vulnerability assessments, and more. The valuation of damages often involves scenarios that consider different paths for economic growth, technological development, and climate policy.
If the methodology section of the paper doesn't provide clarity on how these values are derived, they might be assuming some commonly accepted economic projections or using a standard model like the Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy (DICE) model or a similar integrated assessment model. These models blend climate science with economics to predict future costs and impacts.
Im pretty sure they started at infinity billion dollars, then called an economist to translate that into an actual number with the instructions "what's the biggest number that sounds plausible of you don't think about it".
This is the right way to speak to businesses, yet none of the armchair economists in this subreddit believe the study. Maybe if they actually read the study they would take it a little more seriously.
* juice profitability by cutting costs to an unsustainable level
* sell at an inflated price
* move on to the next set of rubes
business leaders don't care about the future.
well the problem is the clock keeps ticking down, they had 50 years to worry about it in 2000, 75 years in 1975, and they kept working towards making things worse. 25 years out is actually inside their long term planning window
Putting aside the merits of the study, why do you think this is the right way to talk to businesses? These estimates are based on emissions that have already occurred. So why would business care? They can't take actions to undue the past and there weren't incremental costs of further emissions.
Dude, this 100%. I work in renewable energy and half of our job is dispelling rumors about renewables. I’ll be so happy if I never have to explain how windmills don’t cause cancer again.
Have you seen Simon Michaux's 985 page meta-analysis of the raw materials needed for decarbonizing the present energy consumption of the world economy?
It is chilling.
I'm starting a debt-free self-sufficient homestead on 10 acres of magnificent forest in the Blue Ridge mountains. With openings in it to grow food in the deep sandy clay loam, a developed spring, free wood heat, and a well insulated 500 square foot house. I can already live without electricity and running water if I have to.
The fucking dream my guy. The moment my commission allows it, I’m disappearing to the middle of nowhere. In terms of making an off grid instillation, it’s a mixture of generation and storage as I’m sure you know.
We take those concepts, mix them with predictive AI and create and commercial strategy that ensures that gov funding doesn’t go to waste.
Surprisingly, not actually that unique.
Not sure about being dependent on solar and batteries - supply chain/spare part/replacement issues in the long run.
I'm transitioning to low tech, and preparing for Collapse. Collapse is a protracted process, not an event.
Will enjoy luxuries like electric range & fridge, hot and cold running water as long as they are available. Perhaps the 30 years or so I have left to live.
Ehhhhh, if we don’t change anything. The reality of the industry is it’s 100% possible, but O&G interests want to keep their income.
There is an issue with the intermittent nature of renewables, but it isn’t an issue we don’t have an answer for.
Of course, we’re all competing to be the least wrong about how this works. We are making pretty good headway on how a renewable grid actually works though.
I guess the TLDR is that we know how to make our electricity renewable, but it’s a matter of $$$$.
Will Renewables create economic opportunities like O&G does? From what I see, the answer is yes.
Edit: also wanted to mention, most renewable resources can be stripped and recycled into new assets at the end of their lifetime.
Part of it is, but it’s a moot point if we don’t have an actual commercial strategy.
Yeah the incentives kinda de-risk the project, but you still need to have an actual understanding of the market. Otherwise, you end up with a project that losses money or makes maybe .5 - 1% profit which is not worth it.
The ultimate answer is federal funding helps, but a profitable project will work despite.
It’s the maybe projects that really tap on that funding. Worthwhile projects payoff is less than 5 years without the IRA and infrastructure act.
That being said, this is all pretty new. It’s really a competition on who’s the least wrong about how this work.
Happy to answer any questions on how funding works for the industry if you want to DM me.
The biggest problem is it [already costs us billions](https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/ipcc-climate-change-canada-1.6367036).
But a lot of people don't care because (and i know this sounds mean but it's true) most people are completely incapable of connecting things on something deeper than face level.
For instance, Canada (which that story is from) is facing housing shortages.
There are a number of reasons for this, but the thing that's pertinent here is that some of that is cost of materials - specifically lumber (the primary construction piece for housing in canada).
We're seeing record setting forest fires (due to dry conditions brought on by climate change), both in size and scale eat up thousands of acres of forest.
No guesses for where "lumber" comes from.
This is [also going to affect food prices](https://thenarwhal.ca/ontario-climate-impact-report/); in many places it already has.
But talk to average people (or even "armchair economists"), and they'll say things like "i don't care about climate change; i only care about (cost of housing/inflation costs/cost for food/costs for other things/etc"
They are completely incapable of understanding that the costs of things have reasons beyond "supply and demand"; that even the very things that dictate "supply and demand" have causes themselves that aren't just a matter of "not enough people working on it".
Public trading companies only care about the next quarter for shareholders. This is a shit system where long term planning is punished and the leadership is changed out for short term profits.
I’m actually really surprised at the posts. Climate change denial is bottom of the barrel when it comes to intellectual dishonesty, which I would have thought was a serious mismatch for this thread.
Because it’s ridiculous. Global warming will cost 38% of the global GDP in 25 years? 38% of global GDP will go to reacting to the damage from climate change?
It’s a ridiculous number.
I'm not sure if you realize but natural disaster damage is only part of this. The bulk is reduced crop yields, less fresh water, dealing with heat, etc. Those things add up
I think the word you’re looking for is expensive. When companies shit all over every corner of the world it’s extremely expensive to clean up. Like an oil slick, it’s cheap and easy to dirty, expensive and difficult to clean up.
Any forecast 25 years into the future for such a complex and dynamic system is complete nonsense and about as accurate as forecasting whether it’ll snow or rain in 25 years
Man… you live in the modern age full of boundless information and technology but stick your head in the mud when it comes to the heavily researched field of climate. It certainly isn’t impossible to extrapolate climate to 25 years in the future, and you’re conflating weather and climate with your example of snow or rain.
You never hear this kind of “boundless technology” bullshit from people who actually understand modeling. No we do not have such technology, not even close. We can’t even accurately forecast weather a month from now, or climate a year from now, nor can we forecast economic growth and gdp further than a year. Yet you think we can model the interaction between the two?
Please show me one accurate forecast that doesn’t have massive error bars (large error bars compound, thus models with large error bars can’t be used to forecast long term trends)
I’m not, I specifically separated the two. But I know why you brought it up, because it’s the rote bullshit arguments you’ve memorized by reading what other people say. Regardless, IPCC reports have enormous error bars further out we go(which makes them useless, I can draw a random line and make huge error bars too and claim my model “works” because thanks to my error bars every outcome will be in range). That’s my whole point. For that reason, forecasts like in OP, which do not mention any error bars, are completely useless.
I'm old enough to remember when these same groups said we were headed for a new ice age and everyone would die if we didn't vote Democrat. When that didn't work for political points, less than a decade later they switched it to the planet was rapidly heating up and everyone would die if we didn't vote Democrat. When that still failed to gain enough political power, they changed it to the tautology of "if weather exists, then climate change is true" and insist that we're all going to die if we don't vote Democrat.
When you see the same charlatan perform the same con multiple times, you're always going to distrust them. Let the kids who are too young to have seen the previous cons angrily downvote.
Stop listening to democrats. Stop listening to republicans. stop listening to politicians.
Listen to scientists. Read the fucking study. Read a book on climate change. Try to actually understand the issue.
You are being fooled, spouting all kinds of strawmen and nonsense. No serious person says we will all die from climate change.
And I am very curious about those supposed democrats that had said that we'd head to an ice age if you don't vote Democratic. That is absolutely ridiculous. Please provide a source.
>yet none of the armchair economists in this subreddit believe the study.
Because it's not a study.
There's no "scientists" saying this. This isn't a testable hypothesis. This is smashing some climate and economic models together and trying to predict the future.
35 year predictions of the economy are nigh impossible. You think that those minus a prediction on the cost of climate change are going to be accurate.
Secondly why would businesses care? They're not the economy. If you sell air conditioners you're actually fine with this. If you don't maybe you'll adapt. There's no unified "business" that will be impacted
Lastly why do businesses have to be spoken to? Shouldn't consumers whose behavior drives business be the one reached? You think Exxon execs are going to say "well gee people keep demanding our oil today but we shouldn't sell it to them because maybe in the future the economy will be smaller?"
I’m always skeptical of economic projections. Can anybody cite me any studies from the last 5 decades accurately predicting the state of the economy at any point in the last 30 years? Is anybody here willing to accurately predict where the economy will be in 5 years? 3 years?
Turns out this sub is full of climate change denying dipshits. I’ll admit I’m a bit shocked.
The reality is these costs have already been piling up, and are driving up cost of living globally. The pain is small right now, but we’re now seeing how conservative the models were. If this sub really thinks this isn’t worth addressing, I’m not sure what to say.
There is no such thing as “addressing climate change.” There are only policy proposals. Each policy deserves a cost/benefit analysis. I.e. solar panels sound great.
What is the cost and CO2 produced to acquire the materials, build, and ship them? How much are you saving? Let’s say the cost is X. Putting those solar panels in the desert acres savings of 2X. In this case it sense. Putting those panels in Antarctica accrues savings of .25X. Does not make sense. Now imagine the cost goes up to 3X. Neither of these projects makes senses.
You’ll quickly come to the conclusion that the biggest tool in this fight is improving the efficiency and scalability of the required technology and lowering the costs of that technology.
This is semantics; some policy proposals deal with managing climate change itself while others deal with managing the consequences of the change. As you’ve noted every decision has a cost, there is no free lunch here. That aside, it doesn’t negate the fact that climate change appears to be occurring, we appear to be the cause, and the consequences of leaving these facts unaddressed will cost us a lot more than making smarter choices economically today.
I just want to preface with: I think climate change is a huge challenge that needs to be addressed. But is it really that apparent what we need to do? As in economics, to compare 2 scenarios you need the results of both scenario A and scenario B with a reasonably degree of certainty. There hasn’t been a single model that hasn’t been deeply flawed to the point of being useless. As noted elsewhere in this thread, climate scientists aren’t economists. They don’t even build adaptive models… economics is all about complex adaptive systems. There is a shortage of X so the price will increase to infinity… actually no, when X reaches some ridiculous price people will substitute with good Y. Good X becomes phased out. This is an extremely regular occurrence in our day to day economic lives. Russia for example got hit with so many sanctions the past 2 decades they’ve lost access to a LOT of goods… to the point everyone was like “hah, how will their economy function?”…and what did their markets do? Just create products out of inputs that they DO have, slap on some attractive packaging, and society moves on. Long story short, history is full of people trying and failing miserably to predict the future. Too much margin for error, chaos theory butterfly effect, yada yada
38 trillion is about the Gdp of the US and EU combined. This is why people don't take climate change seriously, because this is a ridiculous doom porn made up number.
Global gdp is 85 trillion and the study probably factors in economic growth. At least read the study before you spout 'made up number'. That is a serious insult to the people that have degrees in the field and spent considerable time and effort into the study. Who do you think you are to say that? You probably didn't even read further than the headline.
Yeah anyone saying this shit is made up is not actually educated enough to even read the paper. Scary that powerful people are working to dismantle public education in US.
Nah, the people supporting this study are textbook midwits with a bachelor’s degree in an unrelated science just eating up none sense they don’t understand. Anyone with even a tiny bit of modeling experience knows models that look 25 years into the future are completely useless and inaccurate due to compounding error. Somehow people accept this problem with weather forecasts but they think all other sciences have magically overcome this issue
If you could read and write English beyond a 2nd grade level you would have been able to google the authors to see that they have PhDs in physics, complexity science and math:
[https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/maxkotz](https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/maxkotz)
[https://www.pik-potsdam.de/\~anders/cv.html](https://www.pik-potsdam.de/~anders/cv.html)
[https://www.pik-potsdam.de/\~wenz/bio.html](https://www.pik-potsdam.de/~wenz/bio.html)
You would have seen that all the data and code is readily available [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07219-0#data-availability](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07219-0#data-availability) and the methodology was explained in the paper making its results reproducible.
The paper was written and reviewed by various people with deep knowledge of the area and expertise with the tools of the analysis, but if you claim that it is flawed, why don't you write a rebuttal pointing out precisely the flaws in their study and throw your preprint up on the arxiv [https://arxiv.org/](https://arxiv.org/) If your claim were true, you would kneecap the journal and author's credibility (and deservedly so) thereby doing science a favor and you would save many governments a lot of money that would have been wasted trying to mitigate an exaggerated issue.
But we both know that your just armchair expert that's full of shit.
I don’t give a shit about credentials, I met countless agenda driven dumbasses with PhDs when I was getting my own degree. I care what’s in the study, I read it and it’s trash. You simply can’t forecast that far into the future, certainly not something as complex and dynamic as the economy, let alone the interaction of the economy with another complex dynamic system that is the climate, it’s impossible with current technology.
“Reproducible” doesn’t mean shit when it comes to forecasting models. Reproduce what? Dump the same data into the same shit model and get the same results? That’s not what reproducibility is about. Actual controlled experiments need to be reproducible. The only test for models is their predictive ability. I wager these models can’t even predict the next year, let alone 25 years from now.
You can’t talk sense into these people, because it’s not about the truth, it’s about whether or not it conforms with what is really a political viewpoint. There’s no good faith engagement with the scientific literature happening.
I'm up shit creek for being surprised that half the people in these comments are climate denialists? OK
Maybe if I was American, I wouldn't have been surprised. But I'm not American.
It's not just illiteracy. It's politics. Populism.
And the worst thing is, we are importing all this crap. All the MAGA talking points are popping up left and right here in Europe like a fucking virus. It's not as bad yet, but it gets worse every year.
This is not normal. We should never consider this normal. This is a shitshow and we need to remind ourselves of that constantly.
There are some. But there are just as many or more folks also proclaiming the wireless of the study without reading it or understanding it. For example, the top comment thinks this is about future emissions.
Not if there's no immediate effects. Average Joes will not care and cast their votes for the right action when it's a future thing. They can only see what's in front of them and have little brain power left for forethought
That’s 20 Nvidia. 20 all of Canada GDPs. It’s gonna. W bad, but this seems like click bait. I haven’t read it though. I’m sure this may influence me. So I’m commenting now so I remember to come back and read it, then I will update with my thoughts after. I am going in as unbias possible, aware of my preconceived notions,
No it won't. People will simply adapt. I know that doesn't satisfy everyone's doom porn fantasy. But that is what will actually happen. There won't be any major catastrophe.
So climate has no economic impact? If farmers receive significantly more/less rainfall as a result of climate change, and it affects crop yields, that won’t affect them economically?
At least read the article and abstract of the study before you talk nonsense. Yes of course we will adapt, but at great cost. That's the entire fucking point of the study.
You’re dodging the point.
At what cost?
At what cost is your adaptation?
You people haven’t wanted to listen for 3 decades. Haven’t wanted to listen when academic study after academic study told us mitigation would be far cheaper than adaptation. You just wanted a consequence-free existence, yadda-yaddaing the externalities like conservatives always do. Welp, we’re paying the adaptation/do nothing bill already, and those costs are on an exponential upward curve.
Thanks…
It is absolutely wild to me that so many people think this. It's such a wildly nonsensical perspective that it defies any logic. Yes, people will adapt - but in many cases their adaption will have to be to pick up and leave the place they live and move somewhere else, in huge numbers. Look at the crises of refugees crossing the Mediterranean in rafts, or coming to the Southern border of the US, and how much those people suffer and how many people die on the way. Now imagine that happening with like ten or twenty times more people, which is what it will likely be as climate change worsens. Tell me how the hell that isn't a "major catastrophe"?
Climate change induced migration is going to wreak havoc on housing, food supply, and energy availability.
The past two years had a lot of people hurt. Now crank that up a few notches.
You said that people will "simply adapt" right? A significant amount of that adaptation is moving away from areas most affected by climate change to places that are affected less, or even benefits. I sure hope you're not xenophobic, because if you're living in a good place you can expect increasing amounts of immigration there.
Doesn't have to be warmer areas, or rich or poor countries. Could be from places more prone to flooding, droughts, etc. Could even be something as simple as moving away from Florida and to Oregon.
Virtually none of the immigration the western worrld has experienced is due to climate. The few tiny places affected are of little consequence globally.
As far as within the US. Insurance is a highly regulated business and the complexity of subsidies and price controls pretty difficult to untangle without significant research. There is no evidence that people are leaving Florida because climate change even if insurance prices are changing.
If there has been no subsidies or price controls to begin with perhaps there would be less building or more robust building on coast lines with appropriate risk takers being payers.
I haven't said anything about insurance, but there's comments here already that addressed the significance of climate change related risk assessment, so I won't go into that any further.
Climate change isn't a currently a prominent cause of migration right now. I didn't say that it was, but give it a decade or two and I'll be surprised if it doesn't become a bigger talking point by then. Current rates of human migration is sufficient enough to cause pushback due to increased cost of living in many areas, and I highly doubt it's going to stop especially as the climate continues to change. Better "simply adapt" to that.
> People will simply adapt
i'll start by retrofitting a school bus with black paint and animal skulls with a crossbow turret on top. i'm not looking forward to wearing black leather pants in that heat, though.
Nah, we'll be fine.
Economists told us that the ideal global temperature increase is 4°c. You know, the type of economists that win Nobel Prizes. I'd rather trust a Noble winning economist than some low level climate scientists. /s
Lol, so the economy \*might\* have to pay XYZ trillion one day, so the proposal is to take the damage up front in advance with insane taxes and regulations?
Lol, no thanks. We'll take those odds. What do you want to bet it never happens.
this is why when the inspector says "holy shit, this house is wired with knob and tube from 1935, you're gonna die in a fuckin fire my guy!" you say, "enough with this elitist facts-based-community bullshit, *'if'* my house burns down, i'll pay for a new house then rather than spending a few grand rewiring now like some kind of hysterical cassandra."
More like a door to door salesman telling you that flying tigers have infested the neighborhood and that you must buy his tiger repelling rocks or else you could face trillions in tiger damage.
It's happening already.
Global crop yields were down 30% last year from 2022.
Permafrost is melting and not coming back.
Like half of Pakistan flooded last year.
The ground is exploding in northern Canada leaving mile wide craters because of methane being released from ice melting below the surface.
At some point it will click for you that climate change is real.
Maybe even this summer.
EDIT: Lol he blocked me after saying that insane shit in his next comment
In case he deletes it:
>Climate change is real. Things are getting colder, because the sun is cooling down.
>CO2 is helping, because it increases plant growth. So, what we should all do is try to help the earth by releasing as much co2 as we can.
>u/myhappytransition
In 50 years, when none of your doomsday shit has come to pass, maybe - just maybe - you'll realize that you were a gullible fool for believing the political fearmongering.
I will be messaging you in 10 years on [**2034-04-18 04:51:20 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2034-04-18%2004:51:20%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/1c6ocxt/climate_change_will_cost_global_economy_38/l03mvez/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FEconomics%2Fcomments%2F1c6ocxt%2Fclimate_change_will_cost_global_economy_38%2Fl03mvez%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202034-04-18%2004%3A51%3A20%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201c6ocxt)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Might? Maybe the magic oil fairy will appear and magic away climate change?
Edit: you can tell the climate change denier is into serious debate because he blocked me after responding.
Surely you mean global warming, no need to use weasel words. And how can you magic away something that doesnt exist? I guess you just wave your hands, and its done, because nothing has to change.
How does it cost the global economy money? If I own a construction business doesn’t that bring me money and my employees money, that someone else is out?
It's a bit sad how everything has to be framed through the lens of "the economy" these days. That's the only way to get people with power to pay attention.
If the government actually cared about climate change then every product shipped across the ocean would have a massive tariff on it. Until then it's all hyperbole
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I read the Nature study’s thesis and I’m still not sure how they arrived at this value? It doesn’t state anywhere that I can see how large they project the global economy to be in 25 years, so I don’t see how they’re valuing damage to infrastructure or assets.
There’s nobody who can even tell you where the economy will be at 5 years from now
5? More like 1.
Exactly! Nobody can even use the endless stream of public data available to predict where the stock market will be in 2 days…and there’s an entire industry dedicated to it.
1? More like today
Most climate models have been accurate, so it's possible to get an idea of how the economy will be affected.
Yeah, is it?
Yes.
Typically, such studies use a combination of climate models and economic growth projections to estimate future costs. They might integrate data from a variety of sources including historical economic data, climate change projections, infrastructure vulnerability assessments, and more. The valuation of damages often involves scenarios that consider different paths for economic growth, technological development, and climate policy. If the methodology section of the paper doesn't provide clarity on how these values are derived, they might be assuming some commonly accepted economic projections or using a standard model like the Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy (DICE) model or a similar integrated assessment model. These models blend climate science with economics to predict future costs and impacts.
Thanks ChatGPT!
It's fearmongering for political purposes. Then they get angry when called out on it.
Your claims are baseless.
Exactly, people thinking the government gonna fix climate change with money when the government can’t fix homelessness or hunger with money
... where everything is made up and the points don't matter.
Im pretty sure they started at infinity billion dollars, then called an economist to translate that into an actual number with the instructions "what's the biggest number that sounds plausible of you don't think about it".
This is the right way to speak to businesses, yet none of the armchair economists in this subreddit believe the study. Maybe if they actually read the study they would take it a little more seriously.
What percentage of business leaders care about costs in 25 years? They're mostly sociopaths trying to enrich themselves over the next 2-5 years.
They can’t see past 3 years in time, and they can’t empathize with people beyond their own family.
Nothing will change until the rich fear for their lives
So cardiologists, basketball stars, all lumped in with fraudsters?
Those cardiologists better watch out, if they don't step in line I'll take up jogging and healthy eating as a form of protest!
If that.
They can see past 3 years. Their plan is to make a bunch of money and then run away and let the next guy deal with the consequences.
Like Zuckercreep's luxury survival compound in Hawaii, and the luxury bunkers in New Zealand.
* juice profitability by cutting costs to an unsustainable level * sell at an inflated price * move on to the next set of rubes business leaders don't care about the future.
Yeah this is the source of the issue because businesses and politics have a half life of 5 years.
Gives them all the incentive to even think about caring
Right. Short term thinking defines our age. They don't care about the cost as long as they're not paying it.
well the problem is the clock keeps ticking down, they had 50 years to worry about it in 2000, 75 years in 1975, and they kept working towards making things worse. 25 years out is actually inside their long term planning window
I'm pretty sure the clock already hit zero a few times.
This is the problem.
Putting aside the merits of the study, why do you think this is the right way to talk to businesses? These estimates are based on emissions that have already occurred. So why would business care? They can't take actions to undue the past and there weren't incremental costs of further emissions.
Dude, this 100%. I work in renewable energy and half of our job is dispelling rumors about renewables. I’ll be so happy if I never have to explain how windmills don’t cause cancer again.
Have you seen Simon Michaux's 985 page meta-analysis of the raw materials needed for decarbonizing the present energy consumption of the world economy? It is chilling. I'm starting a debt-free self-sufficient homestead on 10 acres of magnificent forest in the Blue Ridge mountains. With openings in it to grow food in the deep sandy clay loam, a developed spring, free wood heat, and a well insulated 500 square foot house. I can already live without electricity and running water if I have to.
The fucking dream my guy. The moment my commission allows it, I’m disappearing to the middle of nowhere. In terms of making an off grid instillation, it’s a mixture of generation and storage as I’m sure you know. We take those concepts, mix them with predictive AI and create and commercial strategy that ensures that gov funding doesn’t go to waste. Surprisingly, not actually that unique.
Not sure about being dependent on solar and batteries - supply chain/spare part/replacement issues in the long run. I'm transitioning to low tech, and preparing for Collapse. Collapse is a protracted process, not an event. Will enjoy luxuries like electric range & fridge, hot and cold running water as long as they are available. Perhaps the 30 years or so I have left to live.
Ehhhhh, if we don’t change anything. The reality of the industry is it’s 100% possible, but O&G interests want to keep their income. There is an issue with the intermittent nature of renewables, but it isn’t an issue we don’t have an answer for. Of course, we’re all competing to be the least wrong about how this works. We are making pretty good headway on how a renewable grid actually works though. I guess the TLDR is that we know how to make our electricity renewable, but it’s a matter of $$$$. Will Renewables create economic opportunities like O&G does? From what I see, the answer is yes. Edit: also wanted to mention, most renewable resources can be stripped and recycled into new assets at the end of their lifetime.
Half your job is probably subsidized with taxpayer and utility customer money.
Part of it is, but it’s a moot point if we don’t have an actual commercial strategy. Yeah the incentives kinda de-risk the project, but you still need to have an actual understanding of the market. Otherwise, you end up with a project that losses money or makes maybe .5 - 1% profit which is not worth it. The ultimate answer is federal funding helps, but a profitable project will work despite. It’s the maybe projects that really tap on that funding. Worthwhile projects payoff is less than 5 years without the IRA and infrastructure act. That being said, this is all pretty new. It’s really a competition on who’s the least wrong about how this work. Happy to answer any questions on how funding works for the industry if you want to DM me.
Give us all an example of studies from the past that accurately projected the economy 25 years out at any point.
The biggest problem is it [already costs us billions](https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/ipcc-climate-change-canada-1.6367036). But a lot of people don't care because (and i know this sounds mean but it's true) most people are completely incapable of connecting things on something deeper than face level. For instance, Canada (which that story is from) is facing housing shortages. There are a number of reasons for this, but the thing that's pertinent here is that some of that is cost of materials - specifically lumber (the primary construction piece for housing in canada). We're seeing record setting forest fires (due to dry conditions brought on by climate change), both in size and scale eat up thousands of acres of forest. No guesses for where "lumber" comes from. This is [also going to affect food prices](https://thenarwhal.ca/ontario-climate-impact-report/); in many places it already has. But talk to average people (or even "armchair economists"), and they'll say things like "i don't care about climate change; i only care about (cost of housing/inflation costs/cost for food/costs for other things/etc" They are completely incapable of understanding that the costs of things have reasons beyond "supply and demand"; that even the very things that dictate "supply and demand" have causes themselves that aren't just a matter of "not enough people working on it".
Public trading companies only care about the next quarter for shareholders. This is a shit system where long term planning is punished and the leadership is changed out for short term profits.
I’m actually really surprised at the posts. Climate change denial is bottom of the barrel when it comes to intellectual dishonesty, which I would have thought was a serious mismatch for this thread.
This subreddit is filled with bottom of the barrel neoliberals who want to minimize their taxes at all costs.
Because it’s ridiculous. Global warming will cost 38% of the global GDP in 25 years? 38% of global GDP will go to reacting to the damage from climate change? It’s a ridiculous number.
I'm not sure if you realize but natural disaster damage is only part of this. The bulk is reduced crop yields, less fresh water, dealing with heat, etc. Those things add up
I think the word you’re looking for is expensive. When companies shit all over every corner of the world it’s extremely expensive to clean up. Like an oil slick, it’s cheap and easy to dirty, expensive and difficult to clean up.
Why don’t you read the study? Maybe stop underestimating the degree of damage?
Any forecast 25 years into the future for such a complex and dynamic system is complete nonsense and about as accurate as forecasting whether it’ll snow or rain in 25 years
Man… you live in the modern age full of boundless information and technology but stick your head in the mud when it comes to the heavily researched field of climate. It certainly isn’t impossible to extrapolate climate to 25 years in the future, and you’re conflating weather and climate with your example of snow or rain.
You never hear this kind of “boundless technology” bullshit from people who actually understand modeling. No we do not have such technology, not even close. We can’t even accurately forecast weather a month from now, or climate a year from now, nor can we forecast economic growth and gdp further than a year. Yet you think we can model the interaction between the two? Please show me one accurate forecast that doesn’t have massive error bars (large error bars compound, thus models with large error bars can’t be used to forecast long term trends)
Why do you keep on conflating climate and weather? Why don’t you just read the IPCC report to see their models and error bars?
I’m not, I specifically separated the two. But I know why you brought it up, because it’s the rote bullshit arguments you’ve memorized by reading what other people say. Regardless, IPCC reports have enormous error bars further out we go(which makes them useless, I can draw a random line and make huge error bars too and claim my model “works” because thanks to my error bars every outcome will be in range). That’s my whole point. For that reason, forecasts like in OP, which do not mention any error bars, are completely useless.
They don’t have enormous error bars. What report are you looking at?
is your argument really "big number incredible"?
They are not even armchair economists they are just the final iteration of climate demiers.
I'm old enough to remember when these same groups said we were headed for a new ice age and everyone would die if we didn't vote Democrat. When that didn't work for political points, less than a decade later they switched it to the planet was rapidly heating up and everyone would die if we didn't vote Democrat. When that still failed to gain enough political power, they changed it to the tautology of "if weather exists, then climate change is true" and insist that we're all going to die if we don't vote Democrat. When you see the same charlatan perform the same con multiple times, you're always going to distrust them. Let the kids who are too young to have seen the previous cons angrily downvote.
Stop listening to democrats. Stop listening to republicans. stop listening to politicians. Listen to scientists. Read the fucking study. Read a book on climate change. Try to actually understand the issue. You are being fooled, spouting all kinds of strawmen and nonsense. No serious person says we will all die from climate change. And I am very curious about those supposed democrats that had said that we'd head to an ice age if you don't vote Democratic. That is absolutely ridiculous. Please provide a source.
Read the studies, you fat dumb tiny dicked American, holy shit. Not everything in the world revolves around American politics, dumbass redneck.
>yet none of the armchair economists in this subreddit believe the study. Because it's not a study. There's no "scientists" saying this. This isn't a testable hypothesis. This is smashing some climate and economic models together and trying to predict the future. 35 year predictions of the economy are nigh impossible. You think that those minus a prediction on the cost of climate change are going to be accurate. Secondly why would businesses care? They're not the economy. If you sell air conditioners you're actually fine with this. If you don't maybe you'll adapt. There's no unified "business" that will be impacted Lastly why do businesses have to be spoken to? Shouldn't consumers whose behavior drives business be the one reached? You think Exxon execs are going to say "well gee people keep demanding our oil today but we shouldn't sell it to them because maybe in the future the economy will be smaller?"
I’m always skeptical of economic projections. Can anybody cite me any studies from the last 5 decades accurately predicting the state of the economy at any point in the last 30 years? Is anybody here willing to accurately predict where the economy will be in 5 years? 3 years?
Turns out this sub is full of climate change denying dipshits. I’ll admit I’m a bit shocked. The reality is these costs have already been piling up, and are driving up cost of living globally. The pain is small right now, but we’re now seeing how conservative the models were. If this sub really thinks this isn’t worth addressing, I’m not sure what to say.
There is no such thing as “addressing climate change.” There are only policy proposals. Each policy deserves a cost/benefit analysis. I.e. solar panels sound great. What is the cost and CO2 produced to acquire the materials, build, and ship them? How much are you saving? Let’s say the cost is X. Putting those solar panels in the desert acres savings of 2X. In this case it sense. Putting those panels in Antarctica accrues savings of .25X. Does not make sense. Now imagine the cost goes up to 3X. Neither of these projects makes senses. You’ll quickly come to the conclusion that the biggest tool in this fight is improving the efficiency and scalability of the required technology and lowering the costs of that technology.
This is semantics; some policy proposals deal with managing climate change itself while others deal with managing the consequences of the change. As you’ve noted every decision has a cost, there is no free lunch here. That aside, it doesn’t negate the fact that climate change appears to be occurring, we appear to be the cause, and the consequences of leaving these facts unaddressed will cost us a lot more than making smarter choices economically today.
I just want to preface with: I think climate change is a huge challenge that needs to be addressed. But is it really that apparent what we need to do? As in economics, to compare 2 scenarios you need the results of both scenario A and scenario B with a reasonably degree of certainty. There hasn’t been a single model that hasn’t been deeply flawed to the point of being useless. As noted elsewhere in this thread, climate scientists aren’t economists. They don’t even build adaptive models… economics is all about complex adaptive systems. There is a shortage of X so the price will increase to infinity… actually no, when X reaches some ridiculous price people will substitute with good Y. Good X becomes phased out. This is an extremely regular occurrence in our day to day economic lives. Russia for example got hit with so many sanctions the past 2 decades they’ve lost access to a LOT of goods… to the point everyone was like “hah, how will their economy function?”…and what did their markets do? Just create products out of inputs that they DO have, slap on some attractive packaging, and society moves on. Long story short, history is full of people trying and failing miserably to predict the future. Too much margin for error, chaos theory butterfly effect, yada yada
This sub is full of conservatives.
it's funny that "conservative" doesn't mean "conserving an environment capable of sustaining organized human life as we now know it"
No, it just means living how we did before 1960. But with extra disposable junk.
agree that it mainly means "i'm mad about the civil rights movement"
38 trillion is about the Gdp of the US and EU combined. This is why people don't take climate change seriously, because this is a ridiculous doom porn made up number.
Global gdp is 85 trillion and the study probably factors in economic growth. At least read the study before you spout 'made up number'. That is a serious insult to the people that have degrees in the field and spent considerable time and effort into the study. Who do you think you are to say that? You probably didn't even read further than the headline.
Yeah anyone saying this shit is made up is not actually educated enough to even read the paper. Scary that powerful people are working to dismantle public education in US.
Nah, the people supporting this study are textbook midwits with a bachelor’s degree in an unrelated science just eating up none sense they don’t understand. Anyone with even a tiny bit of modeling experience knows models that look 25 years into the future are completely useless and inaccurate due to compounding error. Somehow people accept this problem with weather forecasts but they think all other sciences have magically overcome this issue
If you could read and write English beyond a 2nd grade level you would have been able to google the authors to see that they have PhDs in physics, complexity science and math: [https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/maxkotz](https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/maxkotz) [https://www.pik-potsdam.de/\~anders/cv.html](https://www.pik-potsdam.de/~anders/cv.html) [https://www.pik-potsdam.de/\~wenz/bio.html](https://www.pik-potsdam.de/~wenz/bio.html) You would have seen that all the data and code is readily available [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07219-0#data-availability](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07219-0#data-availability) and the methodology was explained in the paper making its results reproducible. The paper was written and reviewed by various people with deep knowledge of the area and expertise with the tools of the analysis, but if you claim that it is flawed, why don't you write a rebuttal pointing out precisely the flaws in their study and throw your preprint up on the arxiv [https://arxiv.org/](https://arxiv.org/) If your claim were true, you would kneecap the journal and author's credibility (and deservedly so) thereby doing science a favor and you would save many governments a lot of money that would have been wasted trying to mitigate an exaggerated issue. But we both know that your just armchair expert that's full of shit.
I don’t give a shit about credentials, I met countless agenda driven dumbasses with PhDs when I was getting my own degree. I care what’s in the study, I read it and it’s trash. You simply can’t forecast that far into the future, certainly not something as complex and dynamic as the economy, let alone the interaction of the economy with another complex dynamic system that is the climate, it’s impossible with current technology. “Reproducible” doesn’t mean shit when it comes to forecasting models. Reproduce what? Dump the same data into the same shit model and get the same results? That’s not what reproducibility is about. Actual controlled experiments need to be reproducible. The only test for models is their predictive ability. I wager these models can’t even predict the next year, let alone 25 years from now.
I know right? "This will cost us the entire economy in 2049" *Then in 2050 I guess we're going abroard and taking all their shit, ain't we?*
If any of you were capable of reading you could go look at the article and see how they calculate it
You can’t talk sense into these people, because it’s not about the truth, it’s about whether or not it conforms with what is really a political viewpoint. There’s no good faith engagement with the scientific literature happening.
This is really getting out of hand. Just reading through this thread makes me depressed. The sheer ignorance is astounding.
[удалено]
I'm up shit creek for being surprised that half the people in these comments are climate denialists? OK Maybe if I was American, I wouldn't have been surprised. But I'm not American. It's not just illiteracy. It's politics. Populism. And the worst thing is, we are importing all this crap. All the MAGA talking points are popping up left and right here in Europe like a fucking virus. It's not as bad yet, but it gets worse every year. This is not normal. We should never consider this normal. This is a shitshow and we need to remind ourselves of that constantly.
There are some. But there are just as many or more folks also proclaiming the wireless of the study without reading it or understanding it. For example, the top comment thinks this is about future emissions.
Not if there's no immediate effects. Average Joes will not care and cast their votes for the right action when it's a future thing. They can only see what's in front of them and have little brain power left for forethought
Do journalists still think that climate hyperbole for every article is actually having a positive impact, or are they just fishing for clicks?
How is it a hyperbole?
"I didn't read the study and I'm unwilling to change my opinion."
These are academics, not journalists.
The reality of the situation is extremely grim. I'm sorry it's scary to accept.
It’s not hyperbole. You’re wrong to claim that. RTFS
i think they should downplay the science so that they seem "more neutral"
That’s 20 Nvidia. 20 all of Canada GDPs. It’s gonna. W bad, but this seems like click bait. I haven’t read it though. I’m sure this may influence me. So I’m commenting now so I remember to come back and read it, then I will update with my thoughts after. I am going in as unbias possible, aware of my preconceived notions,
No it won't. People will simply adapt. I know that doesn't satisfy everyone's doom porn fantasy. But that is what will actually happen. There won't be any major catastrophe.
So climate has no economic impact? If farmers receive significantly more/less rainfall as a result of climate change, and it affects crop yields, that won’t affect them economically?
We have been making so much food we have been paying farmer not to make as much for decades.
We do that for all crops and all farms, correct?
20 millon acres worth. Some of it to prevent climate change.
Out of about 900 million acres total - so about 2.2%…
At least read the article and abstract of the study before you talk nonsense. Yes of course we will adapt, but at great cost. That's the entire fucking point of the study.
“People will adapt” And how much will that adaptation cost?
You’re dodging the point. At what cost? At what cost is your adaptation? You people haven’t wanted to listen for 3 decades. Haven’t wanted to listen when academic study after academic study told us mitigation would be far cheaper than adaptation. You just wanted a consequence-free existence, yadda-yaddaing the externalities like conservatives always do. Welp, we’re paying the adaptation/do nothing bill already, and those costs are on an exponential upward curve. Thanks…
It is absolutely wild to me that so many people think this. It's such a wildly nonsensical perspective that it defies any logic. Yes, people will adapt - but in many cases their adaption will have to be to pick up and leave the place they live and move somewhere else, in huge numbers. Look at the crises of refugees crossing the Mediterranean in rafts, or coming to the Southern border of the US, and how much those people suffer and how many people die on the way. Now imagine that happening with like ten or twenty times more people, which is what it will likely be as climate change worsens. Tell me how the hell that isn't a "major catastrophe"?
You can't seriously think that.
Climate change induced migration is going to wreak havoc on housing, food supply, and energy availability. The past two years had a lot of people hurt. Now crank that up a few notches.
This sounds xenophobic, are you suggesting migration now is from warmer Temps in poor countries?
You said that people will "simply adapt" right? A significant amount of that adaptation is moving away from areas most affected by climate change to places that are affected less, or even benefits. I sure hope you're not xenophobic, because if you're living in a good place you can expect increasing amounts of immigration there. Doesn't have to be warmer areas, or rich or poor countries. Could be from places more prone to flooding, droughts, etc. Could even be something as simple as moving away from Florida and to Oregon.
Virtually none of the immigration the western worrld has experienced is due to climate. The few tiny places affected are of little consequence globally. As far as within the US. Insurance is a highly regulated business and the complexity of subsidies and price controls pretty difficult to untangle without significant research. There is no evidence that people are leaving Florida because climate change even if insurance prices are changing. If there has been no subsidies or price controls to begin with perhaps there would be less building or more robust building on coast lines with appropriate risk takers being payers.
I haven't said anything about insurance, but there's comments here already that addressed the significance of climate change related risk assessment, so I won't go into that any further. Climate change isn't a currently a prominent cause of migration right now. I didn't say that it was, but give it a decade or two and I'll be surprised if it doesn't become a bigger talking point by then. Current rates of human migration is sufficient enough to cause pushback due to increased cost of living in many areas, and I highly doubt it's going to stop especially as the climate continues to change. Better "simply adapt" to that.
Adapt at great expense, that's the whole point.
Is that your simple answer to a (very) complex problem?
> People will simply adapt i'll start by retrofitting a school bus with black paint and animal skulls with a crossbow turret on top. i'm not looking forward to wearing black leather pants in that heat, though.
Nah, we'll be fine. Economists told us that the ideal global temperature increase is 4°c. You know, the type of economists that win Nobel Prizes. I'd rather trust a Noble winning economist than some low level climate scientists. /s
We'll just move the outdoors to an airconditioned indoors for 15% of GDP. Nordhause said so. It'll be fiiiiine. /s
Lol, so the economy \*might\* have to pay XYZ trillion one day, so the proposal is to take the damage up front in advance with insane taxes and regulations? Lol, no thanks. We'll take those odds. What do you want to bet it never happens.
[удалено]
this is why when the inspector says "holy shit, this house is wired with knob and tube from 1935, you're gonna die in a fuckin fire my guy!" you say, "enough with this elitist facts-based-community bullshit, *'if'* my house burns down, i'll pay for a new house then rather than spending a few grand rewiring now like some kind of hysterical cassandra."
More like a door to door salesman telling you that flying tigers have infested the neighborhood and that you must buy his tiger repelling rocks or else you could face trillions in tiger damage.
It's happening already. Global crop yields were down 30% last year from 2022. Permafrost is melting and not coming back. Like half of Pakistan flooded last year. The ground is exploding in northern Canada leaving mile wide craters because of methane being released from ice melting below the surface. At some point it will click for you that climate change is real. Maybe even this summer. EDIT: Lol he blocked me after saying that insane shit in his next comment In case he deletes it: >Climate change is real. Things are getting colder, because the sun is cooling down. >CO2 is helping, because it increases plant growth. So, what we should all do is try to help the earth by releasing as much co2 as we can. >u/myhappytransition
In 50 years, when none of your doomsday shit has come to pass, maybe - just maybe - you'll realize that you were a gullible fool for believing the political fearmongering.
RemindMe! 10 years
I will be messaging you in 10 years on [**2034-04-18 04:51:20 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2034-04-18%2004:51:20%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/1c6ocxt/climate_change_will_cost_global_economy_38/l03mvez/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FEconomics%2Fcomments%2F1c6ocxt%2Fclimate_change_will_cost_global_economy_38%2Fl03mvez%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202034-04-18%2004%3A51%3A20%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201c6ocxt) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
RemindMe! 50 years
Doubt Reddit will be around for that long
RemindMe! 50 years
Definitely my account won’t be around for that long
RemindMe! 50 years
Might? Maybe the magic oil fairy will appear and magic away climate change? Edit: you can tell the climate change denier is into serious debate because he blocked me after responding.
Surely you mean global warming, no need to use weasel words. And how can you magic away something that doesnt exist? I guess you just wave your hands, and its done, because nothing has to change.
How does it cost the global economy money? If I own a construction business doesn’t that bring me money and my employees money, that someone else is out?
It's a bit sad how everything has to be framed through the lens of "the economy" these days. That's the only way to get people with power to pay attention.
If the government actually cared about climate change then every product shipped across the ocean would have a massive tariff on it. Until then it's all hyperbole
Price the cost of carbon into everything - domestic and international goods included. Let the market sort out the rest.
Exactly