Climate Change

Climate Change Will Reduce Incomes in 2100 from $97,000 to $95,000

Global per capita income now is $10,000. How much should we spend to prevent climate change losses in 2100?

|

BestThermometerMeryllDreamstimeBig
Meryll/Dreamstime

The Yale economist William Nordhaus has spent decades using a combination of econometric and climate models to estimate global warming's future effects. He isn't the only researcher who's been attempting to make such projections, and Nordhaus' latest study considers a range of different estimates. (Get your salt shaker ready.)

In a new National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, Nordhaus and his colleague Andrew Moffatt survey 36 different estimates (derived from 27 studies) of climate change's impact on gross world product by the year 2100. Nordhaus and Moffatt note that "there are many studies of theoretical temperature increases in the 2 to 4°C range, and that they cluster in the range of a loss of 0 to 4% of global output." After crunching the numbers, they report:

The estimated impact from the preferred regression is 1.63% of income at 3°C warming and 6.53% of income at a 6°C warming. We make a judgmental adjustment of 25% to cover unquantified sectors….With this adjustment, the estimated impact is -2.04 (+ 2.21)% of income at 3°C warming and -8.16 (+ 2.43)% of income at a 6°C warming.

The authors note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report declined to make an estimate of future losses, but in the Fourth Report, the panel stated that "Global mean losses could be 1 to 5% of GDP for 4°C of warming." This means that Nordhaus and Moffatt's findings are broadly in line with the climate change consensus.

So what do these findings portend for people lucky enough to be alive in 2100? Let's consider the best-case scenario first. Annual gross world product is currently somewhere around $75 trillion, which without adjustments means that global income stands at around $10,000 per capita. Assume 3 percent economic growth from now until 2100, and a global population that year of 9 billion. Without climate change, world GDP would rise to $872 trillion and income would be $97,000 per capita. Assuming a 3°C increase in average temperature, that would reduce global GDP from $872 trillion to $854 trillion, and income to $95,000 per capita. At 6°C, the figures would be $800 trillion and $89,000 per capita.

In the unlikely event that global economic growth dawdles along at only 2 percent per year for the rest of this century, gross world product would rise to only $388 trillion and income to $43,000 per capita without warming. A 3°C rise in average temperature would reduce global GDP to $380 trillion and income to $42,000 per person; a 6°C increase would cut global GDP to $360 trillion and income to $40,000 per person.

The Nordhaus and Moffatt survey of studies also found "no indication from the damage estimates of a sharp discontinuity or high convexity." In other words, the studies do not identify threshold effects in which damages from climate change accelerate in the future.

These calculations bring up this question: How much should people living today making an average of $10,000 apiece spend in order to prevent the future incomes from falling from $97,000 to $95,000 per capita?

Now is the time to get out your salt shaker and liberally apply the sodium chloride to these calculations.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

93 responses to “Climate Change Will Reduce Incomes in 2100 from $97,000 to $95,000

  1. 4*C warming by 2100? Are you shitting me?

    1. Anything’s possible if your computer model is complex enough.

    2. I must have put a decimal point in the wrong place or something. Shit! I always do that. I always mess up some mundane detail.

      1. That is not a mundane detail Michael!

    3. What about economic gains from everyone moving away from the coast? Think of all the new houses that have to be built.

    4. Did you read anything else? Such as just being calculations given a possible warming rise? The ENTIRE point of this article is to show how stupid it is to spend trillions now when even the warm freaks worst estimate shows so little ultimate cost.

      And all you can do is gripe about the base assumption.

      If someone had a million chamber revolver with one loaded and showed the math on chances, you’d freak out about the base assumption of a million chamber revolver. What a fucking moron.

      1. well you’d never finish cleaning the thing.

      2. You sure told him.

    5. https://skepticalscience.com/rcp.php?t=3

      RCP 8.5 by 2100 goes to 4.9*C

      RCP 6.0 by 2100 goes to 3.0*C

      go to table 4 on part 3

  2. We should spend unlimited amounts of money on something that is unproven, theoretical, and that might come true at some moving deadline 50 to 100 years from now.

    That is sound application of rational thought and a good allocation of capital by taking from the productive class and subsidizing friends of the movement.

    Problem solved and yet never solved because if the earth froze tomorrow, the same psychos would still be condemning capitalism and fossil fuel.
    The climate change scam is always about condemnation of capitalism over anything else. Any of course it is the height of hypocrisy because in calling for the elimination of fossil fuels, these supposed altruistic numbskulls are really calling for poor developing economies to go without cheap forms of energy to improve their lives.

    1. There’s a reason people have 5 year plans. Anything beyond that is a crap shoot. And 5 year plans don’t exactly have the best track record.

      1. Famines are good for Gaia because there will be fewer people soiling her.

        1. Gaia doesn’t give a fuck about people soiling her.

    2. We should spend unlimited amounts of money on something that is unproven, theoretical, and that might come true at some moving deadline 50 to 100 years from now.

      Skeptics have never come close to showing why the earth is warming. Alwayys willing to stay fuzzy about the whole thing. Meanwhile science measures the energy coming in the earth’s system and the energy leaving the earths atmosphere. It is in the frequencies of the co2 resonance that there is less energy leaving the earth’s atmosphere. Its shit kicking sound evidence.

      That is sound application of rational thought and a good allocation of capital by taking from the productive class and subsidizing friends .

      CO2 is a green house gas and has been studied extensively. All the information we have gathered supports human caused warming. This is physics and it will act in spite of what yyou or I think. It is entirely unemotionally mechanical in its action.

      Problem solved and yet never solved because if the earth froze tomorrow, the same psychos would still be condemning capitalism and fossil fuel.
      The climate change scam is always about condemnation of capitalism over anything else. Any of course it is the height of hypocrisy because in calling for the elimination of fossil fuels, these supposed altruistic numbskulls are really calling for poor developing economies to go without cheap forms of energy to improve their lives.

      Scam? You have swallowed all the lies of the fossil fuel propaganda.

      1. Here’s a retard.

        1. Nice Reply. Guess you are stumped for something intelligent to sayy.

  3. These calculations bring up this question: How much should people living today making an average of $10,000 apiece spend in order to prevent the future incomes from falling from $97,000 to $95,000 per capita?

    I’ll field this one, Ron. Uh, zero. Zero money should be spent by relatively poor people today in an attempt to theoretically make relatively rich future people even richer. Zero money.

    Zero is such a convenient number because it’s unitless.

    1. I’d spend $0.10 to have the report shredded and hauled to a landfill.

    2. We should spend enough so that our future generations no longer have to spend on our human ccaused warming.

  4. Has anyone calculated how much of the increase from $10,000 to $97,000 will be due to the benefits of a warmer planet with more CO2?

    1. Or how much the costs of “combating” warming will decrease incomes? “Fighting” it costs money and it has to come from somewhere.

    2. This. It is always a net negative if the planet warms 2 deg. C. And yet, humanity has ALWAYS done better when the globe was warmer than when it was colder. Increased growing seasons, more area to grow food, etc.

      1. Less fossil fuels burned because winters are warmer.

      2. About fifteen years ago there was an article in The Economist about what was then called Global Warming. It pointed out that some parts of the world would benefit from warmer temperatures, for example, parts of Siberia becoming suitable for farming. But since then, I have seen absolutely no discussion of even the remote possibility that warmer temperatures might possibly have even a single partially positive or offsetting effect.

        1. That’s because religious cults tend to have a Total War mentality; if acknowledging these things risks harming The Cause, then it must not be done.

    3. Have YOU even absorbed the base argument here, that no matter how wrong the warmists’ worst case is, they are still wrong to want to spend trillions now instead of in the future?

      Too difficult a concept, I gather. You are so focused on slamming warmists’ basic assumptions that you can’t even understand this is a different way of slamming them.

    4. It is obvious to me that hurricanes are more intense this season. And they are predicted to get more intense over the rest of the century. We will all pay for these hurricanes as their damage becomes intense from our pollution.

      https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

      Hurricanes will become stronger and more intense
      The intensity, frequency and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s
      The intensity, frequency and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm.

      1. And Galveston in 1900 was caused by all those logs being thrown on the fire in Vermont..

        1. You have just shown you don’t understand the carbon cycle.

          Global warming is about digging up fossil fuels and adding carbon stored for 80 million years.

  5. Someday I’ll learn how to add a link here –

    The Independent and the Telegraph – today just run an articles stating that the previous climate models may have been on the hot side. The study is published in Nature Geoscience

    “Computer modelling used a decade ago to predict how quickly global average temperatures would rise may have forecast too much warming, a study has found.”

    “According to The Times, another of the paper’s authors, Michael Grubb, a professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admitted his earlier forecasting models had overplayed how temperatures would rise.”

    1. This is my slightly cooler shocked face.

      1. Oooh, at last someone speaks to the only thing you understand.

  6. …econometric and climate models to estimate global warming’s future effects…latest study considers a range of different estimates…there are many studies of theoretical temperature increases…declined to make an estimate of future losses…

    Estimates and theories? Why are these people making guesses about the end of the world?

    1. Because science!

      1. That is actually science, one using empirical information to build a model to make a prediction about future events.

        1. But it is like saying because I know Newton’s Second Law of motion is F=m*a, then if I apply a 30 N force to a billiard ball now, I know what its motion is going to be 10 years from now.

          1. That I can completely agree on, that the science is questionable. The only point I am arguing is that the things they are doing does fit the idea of science.

            That the scientific method often does fail is actually an important thing to realize. We increasingly value to science and hold it up as some ideal perfect solution. And so I often see people basically say that science that is later discredited is no longer science, and that bothers me. Science is not perfect, and we should act with that knowledge that it is not perfect. Maybe the best we have, but not perfect.

            1. You and I are in violent agreement! 😉

            2. The problem isn’t with the scientific method. The problem is that studies that don’t follow the scientific method are being called “science”. They’re not.

            3. Except the lack of humility and the uncertainty in the model is never emphasized, those that critique the models are blacklisted and shunned as deniers, the models are treated like national security secrets, the raw data is kept under lock and key, and the result is always “We need more money to continue to study this.”

              Funny, but when we did science projects in Middle School, I had to show my data and methodology. I guess I should have just gotten the rest of the class to scream “denier” at the teacher and demand more money from the school district to continue my work.

              1. Except the lack of humility and the uncertainty in the model is never emphasized,

                That is completely wrong. Uncertainty is a very important discussion in science.

        2. That’s just applied math, not science. In science you need to validate your model by making successful predictions in an environment that is as controlled as possible. Any idiot can fit a slope to a trend then claim it’s caused by some other trend. You will never be able to tell the difference between causation and correlation.

          This part has been replaced with peer review and consensus, which merely tells you which models fit the prevailing bias.

  7. In a new National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, Nordhaus and his colleague Andrew Moffatt survey 36 different estimates (derived from 27 studies) of climate change’s impact on gross world product by the year 2100. Nordhaus and Moffatt note that “there are many studies of theoretical temperature increases in the 2 to 4?C range, and that they cluster in the range of a loss of 0 to 4% of global output.” After crunching the numbers, they report:

    We should ignore, naturally, that “warming” is nowhere near the 2-4 degree Celsius range and that the models used to date are still fucking abysmal.

    We make a judgmental adjustment of 25% to cover unquantified sectors

    Seems like they’re trying to use big words to dress up “making shit up”

    1. It’s Science!

    2. We should ignore, naturally, that “warming” is nowhere near the 2-4 degree Celsius range and that the models used to date are still fucking abysmal.

      They are economists and are likely using the climate models that are available in peer reviewed sources. The fact that even in a worse case scenario the situation is undramatic seems interesting in of itself. This article basically says that even if the dire models are correct the overall impact is not likely to be that extreme. This in of itself should be good if people would recognize it, because maybe it could bring climate change arguments down from it’s current place of saying Day After Tomorrow was too conservative.

      Seems like they’re trying to use big words to dress up “making shit up”

      Well, all of science is using data available to make a model to predict future results. “Unquantified sectors” refers to the unknown advancements in human innovation that will occur but that we cannot know now. I will say I don’t iknow enough to validate their 25% number, but it is interesting because you can come up with an empirical value there by looking back in time and seeing on average how new industries affected the economy. You then can use this to extrapolate further.

      1. True, but the effect of new industries was probably linear with a very small slope until maybe 200 years ago. So if you graph that 200 years, you may be able to extrapolate, but the devil is in the time scales. Over 200 years, it might appear to be linear, but it may show an exponential take off by the time you get to 300. Or a logarithmic drop off. The effect could be quite significant.

    3. Seems like you are just another Bombadil idiot who can’t see the benefit of a different tack on how unrealistic the warmists are, how useful it is to show that their own prescriptions for massive spending don’t hold water even if their worst warming fears come true.

  8. Ronald, I get that you believe in ACC. In the same vein, libertarianism’s greatest potential is it’s belief in sound economics. The true power of free minds and free markets is that free market capitalism offers the greatest opportunity for prosperity and for equal opportunity to prosper.

    Assigning so very much credence to the ACC theory is entirely irresponsible vs. the principles of free minds and free markets.

    The very essence of the argument as to its truth or not involves a large amount of blind faith in something that cannot be proven until/if/when some of this stuff actually comes to fruition. In the meantime to subscribe to its accuracy only really offers as a solution some sort of government control over free markets in order to FIX the calamity. That is antithetical to free minds and free markets.

    If nothing else, whether you believe in it or not, the only solution should be to see how the market deals with it when the time comes(should our feet start burning as we walk down the sidewalk). After all, libertarians believe the invisible hand is far more capable of rationally allocation capital towards the need than direction from a central body.
    So therefore, one could argue that the entire discussion of global climate weather is nothing to worry about until the day of necessity and invention is needed.

    1. That is the politest STFU I’ve ever read.

      1. I don’t even know if it makes sense. just spouting.

    2. In the meantime to subscribe to its accuracy only really offers as a solution some sort of government control over free markets in order to FIX the calamity.

      Is this true? You mention market solutions directly after, so I think we can agree that even if a dire version ACC turns out to be correct that there are free market solutions to it. Which I would tend to agree.

      1. I was alluding to the fact the free market would not attempt to realize an ROI on something that might come to fruition until 50 to 100 years in the future. My point is that all of the alarmists are proposing immediate FIXES to a problem that cannot be identified exactly and where solutions cannot be proven until some magical time on the future.

        That is why I mentioned that all of the proposed fixes are rooted in government control of certain avenues such as wind power, electric vehicles, etc. in the form of absurd and obscene subsidies, tax credits, and tax payer funded credits for people to buy electric cars as an example.

        If you believe in free markets, then you have to wait until the problem reaches a point to where a solution is necessary. Then the brightest and best will come up with one that is economical which is the best signal that there is a problem in the first place. Anything else done prior to a realized need will be a misallocation of capital. Kind of like going to the moon in the 60’s. It was neat and a good cold war gimmick but could that tax payer capital been better employed for use ion the private sector. I would argue yes 100% of the time.

    3. There is some value in preparing for worst case scenarios, just in case, but the preventive measures shouldn’t cost more than the disease is likely to ever cost.

    4. And you are a third Bombadil. The point is to show that even if the alarmists are correct on the amount of warming, their prescription of spending trillions now is stupid. Whayt is that so hard to understand?

      One of the best ways to shoot down arguments is to show that even if true, they are still useless and counterproductive.

  9. 2100

    Order the 6-piece Soylent McNuggets from the $100 Value Menu.

    1. Go down the road of chasing climate change predictions – economic or otherwise – and what makes you think you’ll even have that choice to make in 2100?

      Carousel will have already solved all your choices.

      1. Fuck you. I am running!

        (Oh shit, I am 47. My life clock burnt out a long time ago!)

  10. The solution, as always, is Thunderdome. It slowly reduces population through voluntary attrition, benefits technological development, and raises GDP through pay-per-view!

  11. I can’t wait until they’re proven right! Or is it proved?

    1. I’ve heard that the science is settled.

      1. You heard right.

  12. FFS Ron, don’t you get it? If we don’t spend every single penny we have NOW, next year there will be 5 different Cat-5 Hurricanes separately targeting Miami, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, the Outer Banks, and NEW YORK CITY!

    JUST THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

    1. I would be impressed by a hurricane that came all the way inland to Atlanta. The other cities I can accept as losses.

      Wait, Dave Berry is in Miami. I take that back.

    2. “If we don’t spend every single penny we have NOW, next year there will be 5 different Cat-5 Hurricanes separately targeting Miami, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, the Outer Banks, and NEW YORK CITY!”

      All the more reason to get on a crash program to develop a portable storm surge protection system that can protect any city anywhere in the world with a few days’ notice:

      http://markbahner.typepad.com/…..uld-b.html

      1. Will said storm surge protection system keep out Mexicans? Or foreign trade? What about Mexican hurricanes? Or terrorists?

        1. “Will said storm surge protection system keep out Mexicans? Or foreign trade? What about Mexican hurricanes?”

          As an engineer, I feel great if I can solve one big problem at a time. A portable storm surge protection system would protect against “Mexican hurricanes” if that phrase means hurricanes that hit Mexico before hitting the U.S. Or it would also protect against “Mexican hurricanes” if that meant hurricanes that just hit Mexico.

          I would be ecstatic if the world develops a portable storm surge protection system that can protect any city anywhere in the world. By my calculations, based on historical data, it would save the U.S. alone about $20 billion per decade (for a 50 percent reduction in U.S. storm surge damage).

          I’ll leave to Donald Trump addressing the “problem” of keeping out foreign trade.

  13. (Get your salt shaker ready.)

    Monsanto researched GMO salt?!?

    *adjusts alyoominium tinfoil hat*

  14. It’s a funny thing, but you would think if these people were so concerned about the economic impact on people who haven’t even been born yet, they would be absolutely livid about a $20+ trillion debt. But noooo…

    1. The sort of people most apoplectic about ACC are the same people who don’t think of things in terms of economics, period. Ultimately, people kind of hate economists. They don’t discover fuzzy animals or cool explosions like other branches, and they just basically exist to bum people out about how they can’t just do whatever they want.

      1. Ironically the point of this was to persuade people who care about material well being. It ended up being an own-goal.

      2. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the works of Paul Krugman.

    2. Sea level rise alone will cost trillions of dollars by itself. This will rise for several more centuries. The less we pollute, the less sea level rise.

  15. Not only do we know what the weather will be in 2100, we know what incomes in 2100 would be with and without changes in weather in the next 83 years. And we know these things so accurately that we can do NPV calculations to determine the return on money given to the government to control the weather.

    These people are crazy.

    1. Weather and climate? That old argument?

  16. Hi Ron,

    In light of this new evidence, are you going to publicly and officially retract your statement of 2015:

    “Folks, as I have said, my best judgement is that the preponderance of the evidence – not beyond a reasonable doubt – suggests that man-made global warming could become a significant problem later in this century.”

    Best wishes,
    Mark

    P.S. You wrote, “These calculations bring up this question: How much should people living today making an average of $10,000 apiece spend in order to prevent the future incomes from falling from $97,000 to $95,000 per capita?” I made the same point in 2013, in response to an MIT Technology Review article that called for spending on climate change to be increased…though my prediction is that world per capita income in 2100 will be $1,000,000+ (in 2017 dollars):

    http://markbahner.typepad.com/…..entry.html

    1. He left in the appropriate weasel word could. It could be a problem, after all. And you know, squirrels could take over the world by then.

      1. Squirrels? Take over the world?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6UQ4GhrsAo

    2. Hi Mark: Good to hear from you. Back in 2009, for the WSJ I wrote an op/ed, Is Government Action Worse Than Global Warming? in which, among other things, I noted: U.S. GDP in 2100 is projected to be between 0.6 and 3.6 percent lower than it would otherwise have been. Assuming the $14 trillion U.S. economy grows at 2.5 percent per year, GDP in 2100 would be $130 trillion. If climate change damages push GDP 3.6 percent below what it would otherwise have been that means that GDP in 2100 would be about $125 trillion, or $5 trillion lower. That’s not nothing, but the loss is more than double ($12 trillion) what would occur if U.S. economic growth were depressed from 2.5 to 2.4 percent per year between now and 2100.

      See also, my 2014 column, Climate Change Costs by 2100: Doing Nothing Has the Same Price Tag as Doing Something.

      And chapter 6, Can We Cope With the Heat? in The End of Doom.

      1. Hi Ron:

        It’s good to hear from you, too.

        Unfortunately…:-)…your response still leaves me uncertain about whether your opinion has changed from:

        “Folks, as I have said, my best judgement is that the preponderance of the evidence – not beyond a reasonable doubt – suggests that man-made global warming could become a significant problem later in this century.”

        In your first paragraph, you posit that U.S. GDP in 2100 might be $125 trillion with global warming, versus $130 trillion without global warming (presumably these are in year 2009 dollars, which was when you wrote the WSJ op-ed). Compared to the $14 trillion value you gave for the U.S. GDP in 2009, it seems like the people of 2100 would be sitting pretty, with or without global warming.

        In your 2014 column you wrote, regarding world per capita income and U.S. per-capita income: “In the scenarios sketched out above, a worst-case 2 percent loss of income resulting from adaptation would mean that the $60,000 and $138,000 per capita income averages would fall to $58,800 and $135,240, respectively.”

        Again, that seems like a trivial problem for the citizens of the world and of the U.S. in 2100.

        So by your assessments, does it now appear that the preponderance of evidence indicates that climate change will *not* be a significant problem later in this century? For example, wouldn’t climate change have to reduce GDP by well over 10% to be considered a “significant problem”?

        Best wishes,
        Mark

        1. Hi Mark: The problem is how much credibility to assign to the outputs of computer models. Do Nordhaus’ econometric models underestimate the future damage? Do the climate computer models run too hot? It would be really nice, if the researchers would nail climate sensitivity.

          The physics and empirics of climate change science suggest to me that there could be a significant warming due to loading up the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. The result will be rising seas, shifts in plant and animal communities, farming changes, shifts in the occurrences of floods, droughts, rainstorms, and so forth. The chief question is the speed with which these changes occur. It would be better to avoid these if it can be done cheaply. Here’s my solution.

          That being said, I think that the folks over at Niskanen have pretty much summed up where I’m at.

          In any case, I see myself as a reporter who is trying to keep science separate from policy.

  17. Might as well be shamans reading entrails. Please.

  18. Climate change will greatly increase human trafficking too, no doubt. It must be stopped, at any cost.

    The worst proposal I’ve seen (in the once-esteemed Washington Post, no less), was to build a series of nuclear plants in Antarctica to pump the rising ocean water back to the interior of that continent for re-freezing. To combat a 30-cm (one foot) sea level rise over a century. Instead of building sea walls a foot higher.

    1. That proposal is up there with the one to use the geothermal heat from the Yellowstone caldera for power……….
      to cool off the caldera so it won’t erupt.

      Lets put up windmills to take away the energy of a hurricane!

  19. And I saw another story state as a fact that Irma flooding was worse in Miami because the sea level had risen 10 to 12 inches in the past century. It linked to a paper from 1981 that calculated a 9 inch rise per century in Miami sea levels, based on high tide readings from 1930 to 1980. Even though all of the increase was between 1930 and 1950, and the trend from 1950 to 1980 was flat. And no one had bothered to check it to see if the predicted trend was accurate 37 years later.

    1. Seriously. When I taught physics, I always tried to get my students to think in terms of scales, orders of magnitude etc.

  20. Hmm, and how much in grants did these ‘experts’ take in?

  21. Why do you hate the earth?!?!?

    1. The earth murdered my father, and raped my mother!

  22. A heartening study if money were the only metric involved. What happens to the people who have more skin cancers or who can’t leave their homes because breathing the tainted air is dangerous to their health? Temperature inversions can trap polluted air over a region for days, not to mention the problems caused by rampant forest fires- see Seattle’s weather this year. We already have days when people are warned to remain indoors because the air is unhealthy. How will the pollution of drinking water and oceans affect the quality of life? What effect will contaminated soil have on food and on the pregnant women who eat the food grown on it or the cattle that grazed there. Expectant mothers are already advised to avoid certain fishes including tuna.

    Climate change can bring about all of these considitions which will probably make the quality of life a good deal less pleasant. We are already seeing mutated species and invasions of disease causing bacteria and other organisms that cause diseases that thrive in warm climates. There have already been 2 cases of blubonic plague in the US, recently. Rats do tend to thrive in warmer climates and with the increased global interdependence, how long will it be before diseases supposedly confined to sub Saharan Africa start showing up in the waters of Europe and North America?

    1. Because none of that can be measured economically, of course.

      Nice use of the “just costs no benefits” fallacy by the way. Why do you think those diseases thrive in warm areas? Because warmth makes it easier for all living things to thrive, including livestock and agriculture. Not to mention AGW has supposedly counteracted the growth of oceanic anoxic zones.

      Meanwhile, fewer people will die of hypothermia, slipping on ice, various winter-enhanced illnesses… The final sum is too complex to measure. Sadly, “trying to measure the unmeasurable” is a pretty good working definition for “socialism”.

  23. How much should we spend today on idle speculation about 83 years from now when everyone reading this is dead?

    Less than squat…

  24. Anything’s possible if your computer model is complex enough.

    Male Extra Avis

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.