by Summary:
But few are focusing on the real measurable — not what it will cost economically to address the problem, but what it will cost economically to not address the problem. "Cost economically" here means exactly and only what the people at Forbes and Bloomberg think it means — How does economic activity slow when atmospheric temperature rises? How are profits and wealth affected? This analysis looks at no other factors affecting the economy, such as the cost of recovery from super-storms. One of those who did address the economic cost of not dealing with climate change is Solomon Hsiang, professor of public policy at UC Berkeley and coauthor of a little-noticed 2015 paper, "Global nonlinear effect of temperature on economic production." A link to the Nature abstract is here; a link to the
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: climate change
This could be interesting, too:
But few are focusing on the real measurable — not what it will cost economically to address the problem, but what it will cost economically to not address the problem. "Cost economically" here means exactly and only what the people at Forbes and Bloomberg think it means — How does economic activity slow when atmospheric temperature rises? How are profits and wealth affected? This analysis looks at no other factors affecting the economy, such as the cost of recovery from super-storms. One of those who did address the economic cost of not dealing with climate change is Solomon Hsiang, professor of public policy at UC Berkeley and coauthor of a little-noticed 2015 paper, "Global nonlinear effect of temperature on economic production." A link to the Nature abstract is here; a link to the
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: climate change
This could be interesting, too:
Joel Eissenberg writes Seafood says global warming is not a hoax
Angry Bear writes Subsidizing Fossil Fuels
Joel Eissenberg writes The future of solar power looks bright!
Joel Eissenberg writes Investing in the hoax market
But few are focusing on the real measurable — not what it will cost economically to address the problem, but what it will cost economically to not address the problem. "Cost economically" here means exactly and only what the people at Forbes and Bloomberg think it means — How does economic activity slow when atmospheric temperature rises?
How are profits and wealth affected? This analysis looks at no other factors affecting the economy, such as the cost of recovery from super-storms.
One of those who did address the economic cost of not dealing with climate change is Solomon Hsiang, professor of public policy at UC Berkeley and coauthor of a little-noticed 2015 paper, "Global nonlinear effect of temperature on economic production." A link to the Nature abstract is here; a link to the paper itself is here (pdf).…
Can we afford, economically, not to address climate change now? The answer, of course, is no.
Yet once more the pathological among us have us asking the wrong questions. All they want to know is, will their own wealth be affected? Will they still keep their billions? Will they die poorer than they are today?
The question we should be asking is, will the rest of us die poorer — and sooner — if our first priority is protecting the wealth of the wealthy?
The answer, of course, is yes.Looks like a collision course unfolding.
I was actually on a naval vessel where the officer of the deck was watching a collision course developing and became paralyzed. The junior officer of the deck saw what was happening and rushed to get the captain (in the middle of the night). The captain reached the bridge in time to take command and avert the collision.
Down with Tyranny
How Much Will It Cost to Address Climate Change? Pennies Compared to the Alternative
How Much Will It Cost to Address Climate Change? Pennies Compared to the Alternative
Thomas Neuburger