Posted on 05/23/2018 10:33:39 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Achieving the toughest climate change target set in the global Paris agreement will save the world about $30tn in damages, far more than the costs of cutting carbon emissions, according to a new economic analysis.
Most nations, representing 90% of global population, would benefit economically from keeping global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, the research indicates. This includes almost all the world’s poorest countries, as well as the three biggest economies – the US, China and Japan – contradicting the claim of US president, Donald Trump, that climate action is too costly.
The scientists used 40 global climate models to estimate the future economic impact of meeting the 1.5C target - a tough goal given the world has already experienced 1C of man-made warming.
“By the end of the century, we find the world will be about 3% wealthier if we actually achieve the 1.5C target relative to 2C target,” said Marshall Burke, assistant professor at Stanford University in the US, who led the new work. “In dollar terms, this represents about $30tn in cumulative benefits.”
The researchers acknowledge there are significant uncertainties in their economic modelling, but said they are confident that keeping climate change to 1.5C is very likely to benefit the vast majority of the world’s people.
Prof Maximilian Auffenwanker, at the University of California Berkeley, US, and not part of the research team said: “Translating the impacts of climate change into economic damages is challenging. Pinning down just how large the effects of climate will be on the long-term growth of GDP needs to be a high priority for future work.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Translation: We want to take your money and freedoms you peasants.
I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today
And it’ll only cost $300 trillion dollars to implement!
Change “save” to “cost” and the Guardian (the new Pravda) will be correct.
Nice try, journalists. Altered any “data” lately? What about misinterpreting simple statistics? How about CO2 absorption equations? Dumb*sses.
Prof Maximilian Auffenwanker? Really?
Prof. A-Wanker seems to be a fiction writer, not a mathematician or a statistician. While I am a big fan of math, it must be based on facts and not just an agenda. Leftists disgust me.
I don’t think it’s $30tn. It’s more like $35.9685 tn. At least according to my Texas Instrument Algorithm, and Siri.
Why “40 climate models”? If they knew what they were doing there would be ONE climate model that reflected reality. This is BS.
LOL! Hopefully “they” will hold their breath waiting for that achievement to arrive.
$30 billion highly suspect “benefits”
$1,000 billion costs (minimum)
It doesn’t take an MBA to understand cost / benefit analysis.
Additionally, scientists assure us, if pigs had wings, they could fly.
It’s often said that one single letter, “s,” disproves the whole scam.
As you point out, Model vs. Models.
Maybe if these targets were implemented starting in 1860, the warm winter of 1911-12 that released all of those icebergs including the one that sunk the Titanic would not have taken place. I’d believe that caveat before anything else these people would tell me.
If you want to do your part to reduce carbon dioxide, you can stop breathing it out!
when do they start plugging volcanos.
Well, duh. I bet one unaccountable uncertainty in their political science models is acts of God. And that's one that is certain to cause a HUGE temperature rise for most of us (if we don't change our ways) when He's ready.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
OK, now lay out your precise plan to achieve this goal. Will it require relocating people to cites where mass transit is available? Will it require limiting air travel and by how much? Will it require limiting the size of houses and by how much? Etc., Etc.
I did see one UK study that proposed such a plan. For example, for air travel: take offs and landings in the UK would be limited to 100 per week. Families might get one over seas air travel vacation in their lives. Almost all people not engaged in agriculture would be relocated from the country to the cities. No suburbs. Etc., Etc.
“By the end of the century, we find the world will be about 3% wealthier if we actually achieve the 1.5C target relative to 2C target,” said Marshall Burke, assistant professor at Stanford University in the US, who led the new work. “In dollar terms, this represents about $30tn in cumulative benefits.”
The fact that this guy could make such a preposterous claim shows he is either delusional or a pathological liar.
It does not take very much education to comprehend that adjusting the global temperature is not as simple as adjusting your home thermostat. But this guy pretends that it’s simple and obvious. And that’s just ludicrous.
This is pitched like a sleazy Multi-Level Marketing scam and has about the same cost-benefit.
That could be a typo - - caused by global warming...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.