Do you want to estimate the cost of Hurricane Dorian? Putting aside the awful, and immeasurable toll of raw and long lasting suffering, how many billions has, and will, Dorian cost? Not all of the storm's havoc is attributable to climate disruption but a substantial portion is.
When a politician such as Bernie Sanders, Jay Inslee, or Elizabeth Warren steps forward with a plan to address the crisis their plan is always evaluated and measured by how much it will cost. Rarely is the price of inaction, or insipid action, measured.
Four years ago the Economist took a shot at analyzing the potential cost of inaction to investors. They published a scholarly peer reviewed paper on the subject. Here's the first paragraph from the executive summary of that report:
"The asset management industry—and thus the wider community of investors of all sizes—is facing the prospect of significant losses from the effects of climate change. Assets can be directly damaged by floods, droughts and severe storms, but portfolios can also be harmed indirectly, through weaker growth and lower asset returns. Climate change is a long-term, probably irreversible problem beset by substantial uncertainty. Crucially, however, climate change is a problem of extreme risk: this means that the average losses to be expected are not the only source of concern; on the contrary, the outliers, the particularly extreme scenarios, may matter most of all."
The authors of the paper went on to say that by the year 2100 climate disruption could cause roughly $4.2 trillion, an amount equal to the total GDP of Japan, to be lost from the stock markets of the world. They point out that this amount only reflects the costs to privately held stocks. It does not reflect the cost to other sectors of the economy.
For example, a recent study by economists at the University of Chicago reports that Climate change could cost the U.S. up to 10.5 percent of its GDP by 2100 if average temperatures continue to rise at the pace that they have been rising in recent years.
So, the question is not, "What will a climate disruption plan of action cost". The question is: "Is this plans investment adequate to save humanity from global impoverishment?"
This subject is explored more thoroughly in a recent article at The Nation https://www.thenation.com/article/climate-change-costs-inaction-green-new-deal/
Tim
Central Minnesota Political
 |
| Thanks to Wikipedia |
When a politician such as Bernie Sanders, Jay Inslee, or Elizabeth Warren steps forward with a plan to address the crisis their plan is always evaluated and measured by how much it will cost. Rarely is the price of inaction, or insipid action, measured.
Four years ago the Economist took a shot at analyzing the potential cost of inaction to investors. They published a scholarly peer reviewed paper on the subject. Here's the first paragraph from the executive summary of that report:
"The asset management industry—and thus the wider community of investors of all sizes—is facing the prospect of significant losses from the effects of climate change. Assets can be directly damaged by floods, droughts and severe storms, but portfolios can also be harmed indirectly, through weaker growth and lower asset returns. Climate change is a long-term, probably irreversible problem beset by substantial uncertainty. Crucially, however, climate change is a problem of extreme risk: this means that the average losses to be expected are not the only source of concern; on the contrary, the outliers, the particularly extreme scenarios, may matter most of all."
The authors of the paper went on to say that by the year 2100 climate disruption could cause roughly $4.2 trillion, an amount equal to the total GDP of Japan, to be lost from the stock markets of the world. They point out that this amount only reflects the costs to privately held stocks. It does not reflect the cost to other sectors of the economy.
For example, a recent study by economists at the University of Chicago reports that Climate change could cost the U.S. up to 10.5 percent of its GDP by 2100 if average temperatures continue to rise at the pace that they have been rising in recent years.
So, the question is not, "What will a climate disruption plan of action cost". The question is: "Is this plans investment adequate to save humanity from global impoverishment?"
This subject is explored more thoroughly in a recent article at The Nation https://www.thenation.com/article/climate-change-costs-inaction-green-new-deal/
Tim
Central Minnesota Political
Comments
Post a Comment