Potsdam Institute paper uses 40 years of data from 1,600 regions to project baked-in economic damage from climate change at US$38t by 2050, equivalent to 19% lower global income than in stable climate
We knew this already (Stern Report pointed out that the cost of inaction would outweigh cost of mitigation in 2007) and yet we keep funneling a trillion dollars a year to the fossil fuel industries who will be the ruin of us all. Hell, we even got our own fossil fools giving themselves king-like powers to fast track climate and ecosystem-destroying projects in Aotearoa. We are simply too stupid a species to kaitiaki a planet 😭
Unfortunately it will require more cyclone Gabrielle's and more deaths before shit gets serious. We are in a phase where regardless of the scientific evidence we have a regime focused on short term gain for the very few at the expense of very real long term pain for the many. Unless you're a pet owner looking for a rental property....or an idiot looking to make up a few minutes with a tunnel from the airport to your office front door 🚪.... This govt sux! ✊🏽
Steve Keen really has been banging on about this for years, and it's criminal that he and others have been sidelined by the IPCC modellers for so long. Big Academia has become too much about certain journals and rankings, even when those doing the work identify a heap of limitations and externalities. Just because they choose not to factor them in, doesn't make them any less real.
unfortunately we live in a country despite suffering from Cyclone Gabrielle the majority of voters put in a government that still doesn’t believe that climate change is real. And that is revealed by the intention to cut 13% of staff at NIWA (why are staff cuts double the required 6.5% of savings)
I bet the government hasn’t even heard of the SeaRise project. My only consolation is the schadenfreude anticipation of christopher luxon Strand property at Onetangi getting swept away.
What do you say to your children/grandchildren? I worry so much for their future, I wish political leaders and business leaders would think beyond their lifetimes.
This mirrors what is happening in this country. We recognise we aren't going to achieve the target so instead of trying harder, we just do away with the target altogether and then it's not a problem.
covered a lot of the predicted costs of climate change for the century. From memory I think it concluded that the cost to tackle climate change effectively was about 1% of global GDP, and every dollar spent would save about ten dollars in future costs. Unfortunately, this report has been largely ignored by the vast majority of political parties, MPs and voters who seem largely oblivious to the threats and costs of climate change. The old adages of 'ignorance is bliss' and 'let's not let facts get in the way of a good argument' have allowed decades of ignorance, denial and obfuscation to get in the way of the necessary actions to respond effectively.
Keep up the great work bringing the evidence to light to the Kaka and allowing us to share it with the public, particularly because mainstream media has sadly proven woefully not up to the task of adequately informing the public.
copy pasting a comment I made in the 'chat' section about the Stern Review...
The Stern report used existing economic modelling, but suggested the uncertainties and more recent science could make things worse. This research is based on empirical evidence, with projections laid over physical emissions pathways. It ignores the economic models. The damage functions used in economic modelling of climate change are based on rubbish assumptions and need to get in the bin. This is the first proper shift away from using them and I am hoping it begets a landslide. That the economic models catastrophically underestimate climate damages prevents every institutional part of the economic system from having a proper understanding of the impacts of climate change. Change that and the response will shift gears. Of course, you are right to be dubious. The economic modellers may continue to ignore this like they have every other challenge, and the same dodgy models will continue to pollute the systemic response. They say that change in that domain will happen 'one funeral at a time'. Prof Steve Keen is looking for sponsors for a piece of work he is planning to do with Prof Tim Lenton (tipping points expert) to create new, more realistic damage functions for use in economic modelling. They are planning to publish in science journals (like Nature) rather than economics journals, where peer reviewers are pulled from a small set of orthodox economic climate modellers that reject everything that disagrees with them.... Eventually progress will happen!
Regarding the discussion about how those that are likely to suffer the most have 'contributed' the least to climate change. This government is saying stuff you to them with its 'independent review' of agricultural methane emissions with the aim of identifying the emission level that makes no increased contribution to climate change.
Whereas equity considerations lead to increasing the rate of reduction of agricultural methane emissions.
When we lived i Dubai a long time ago I remember the roads never had storm water drains etc because of the very low rain fall and usually once a year you would get flooding but because the ground is mainly sand there was very good natural drainage However since then I think Dubai town is pretty well covered in ground or bitumen
I am sure this is a great report, as has been discussed in other times the use of RCP8.5 isn’t useful and they would be better to ignore it. It makes you wonder why it was included, other than the bleak headlines. The under reporting or inaction isn’t solved by exaggerating claims.
The focus on fossil fuels and weather indicates we are ignoring the biological and ecological signposts. We have been changing our climate for a long, long time.
As Andrea Wulf describes in ‘The Invention of Nature’, Alexander von Humboldt warned of our ability to change the climate about 120 years ago. Long before the rapid increase in fossil fuel extraction.
This is the research we need! The cost of not achieving far out weighs the cost of taking action!
We knew this already (Stern Report pointed out that the cost of inaction would outweigh cost of mitigation in 2007) and yet we keep funneling a trillion dollars a year to the fossil fuel industries who will be the ruin of us all. Hell, we even got our own fossil fools giving themselves king-like powers to fast track climate and ecosystem-destroying projects in Aotearoa. We are simply too stupid a species to kaitiaki a planet 😭
Unfortunately it will require more cyclone Gabrielle's and more deaths before shit gets serious. We are in a phase where regardless of the scientific evidence we have a regime focused on short term gain for the very few at the expense of very real long term pain for the many. Unless you're a pet owner looking for a rental property....or an idiot looking to make up a few minutes with a tunnel from the airport to your office front door 🚪.... This govt sux! ✊🏽
Steve Keen really has been banging on about this for years, and it's criminal that he and others have been sidelined by the IPCC modellers for so long. Big Academia has become too much about certain journals and rankings, even when those doing the work identify a heap of limitations and externalities. Just because they choose not to factor them in, doesn't make them any less real.
Thanks guys
unfortunately we live in a country despite suffering from Cyclone Gabrielle the majority of voters put in a government that still doesn’t believe that climate change is real. And that is revealed by the intention to cut 13% of staff at NIWA (why are staff cuts double the required 6.5% of savings)
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/513799/niwa-proposes-to-cut-up-to-90-jobs-union
I bet the government hasn’t even heard of the SeaRise project. My only consolation is the schadenfreude anticipation of christopher luxon Strand property at Onetangi getting swept away.
What do you say to your children/grandchildren? I worry so much for their future, I wish political leaders and business leaders would think beyond their lifetimes.
How about this from news overnight.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-68841141
This mirrors what is happening in this country. We recognise we aren't going to achieve the target so instead of trying harder, we just do away with the target altogether and then it's not a problem.
The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change in 2006 (http://mudancasclimaticas.cptec.inpe.br/~rmclima/pdfs/destaques/sternreview_report_complete.pdf)
covered a lot of the predicted costs of climate change for the century. From memory I think it concluded that the cost to tackle climate change effectively was about 1% of global GDP, and every dollar spent would save about ten dollars in future costs. Unfortunately, this report has been largely ignored by the vast majority of political parties, MPs and voters who seem largely oblivious to the threats and costs of climate change. The old adages of 'ignorance is bliss' and 'let's not let facts get in the way of a good argument' have allowed decades of ignorance, denial and obfuscation to get in the way of the necessary actions to respond effectively.
Keep up the great work bringing the evidence to light to the Kaka and allowing us to share it with the public, particularly because mainstream media has sadly proven woefully not up to the task of adequately informing the public.
In 2022 a study out of the UK showed that at 2deg of heating the rice crop is failing,I think rice is the largest crop .
copy pasting a comment I made in the 'chat' section about the Stern Review...
The Stern report used existing economic modelling, but suggested the uncertainties and more recent science could make things worse. This research is based on empirical evidence, with projections laid over physical emissions pathways. It ignores the economic models. The damage functions used in economic modelling of climate change are based on rubbish assumptions and need to get in the bin. This is the first proper shift away from using them and I am hoping it begets a landslide. That the economic models catastrophically underestimate climate damages prevents every institutional part of the economic system from having a proper understanding of the impacts of climate change. Change that and the response will shift gears. Of course, you are right to be dubious. The economic modellers may continue to ignore this like they have every other challenge, and the same dodgy models will continue to pollute the systemic response. They say that change in that domain will happen 'one funeral at a time'. Prof Steve Keen is looking for sponsors for a piece of work he is planning to do with Prof Tim Lenton (tipping points expert) to create new, more realistic damage functions for use in economic modelling. They are planning to publish in science journals (like Nature) rather than economics journals, where peer reviewers are pulled from a small set of orthodox economic climate modellers that reject everything that disagrees with them.... Eventually progress will happen!
Regarding the discussion about how those that are likely to suffer the most have 'contributed' the least to climate change. This government is saying stuff you to them with its 'independent review' of agricultural methane emissions with the aim of identifying the emission level that makes no increased contribution to climate change.
Whereas equity considerations lead to increasing the rate of reduction of agricultural methane emissions.
When we lived i Dubai a long time ago I remember the roads never had storm water drains etc because of the very low rain fall and usually once a year you would get flooding but because the ground is mainly sand there was very good natural drainage However since then I think Dubai town is pretty well covered in ground or bitumen
I am sure this is a great report, as has been discussed in other times the use of RCP8.5 isn’t useful and they would be better to ignore it. It makes you wonder why it was included, other than the bleak headlines. The under reporting or inaction isn’t solved by exaggerating claims.
The focus on fossil fuels and weather indicates we are ignoring the biological and ecological signposts. We have been changing our climate for a long, long time.
As Andrea Wulf describes in ‘The Invention of Nature’, Alexander von Humboldt warned of our ability to change the climate about 120 years ago. Long before the rapid increase in fossil fuel extraction.
There are many fronts to be working on!