Costs of Climate Change Denial Start to Roll In

[Oilpan4]

Very twilight zone like.
Putting out fires makes them worse, the only way to make them less intense is have more fires.
It only took 50 years to figure it out.

[WetEV]

Very twilight zone like.
Putting out fires makes them worse, the only way to make them less intense is have more fires.
It only took 50 years to figure it out.

Oddly, I remember people saying this 50 years ago. Of course, now it's national news.

Wonder how long it will take to figure out climate change?

[Oilpan4]

We figured that out at the end of the last ice age.

[GRA]

GCC:

Study finds stabilizing warming at 1.5 deg C would result in economic hit through 2100; benefits accrue by 2300

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/1 ... -dice.html

A new study by a team from San Jose State University and Stanford University has found that—even under heightened damage estimates—the additional mitigation costs of limiting global warming to 1.5 deg. C (relative to 2.0 deg. C) are higher than the additional avoided damages this century under most parameter combinations considered. An open-access paper on their work appears in the journal PLoS ONE

Specifically, the researchers found that under their central parameter values, limiting global warming to 1.5 deg. C results in a net loss of gross world product of roughly US$40 trillion relative to 2 deg. C and achieving either 1.5 deg.C or 2.0 deg. C requires a net sacrifice of gross world product, relative to a no-mitigation case, though 2100 with a 3%/year discount rate.

They found that the benefits of more stringent mitigation accumulate over time; the calculations indicate that stabilizing warming at 1.5 deg. C or 2.0 deg. C by 2100 would eventually confer net benefits of thousands of trillions of dollars in gross world product by 2300. . . .

Brown and Saunders note that efforts to mitigate global warming are often justified through calculations of the economic damages that may occur absent mitigation. Although the earliest damage estimates were speculative, more recent studies have provided empirical estimates of damages on economic growth that accumulate over time and result in larger damages than those estimated previously.

These damage estimates suggest that limiting global warming this century to 1.5 deg. C avoids tens of trillions of 2010 US dollars in damage to gross world product relative to limiting global warming to 2.0 deg. C. However, in order to estimate the net effect on gross world product, mitigation costs associated with decarbonizing the world’s energy systems must be subtracted from the benefits of avoided damages, the authors argue. . . . .

Assuming their analysis is correct, ISTM the question boils down to how much does the current generation owe to future ones, and how many generations out?

[WetEV]

A new study by a team from San Jose State University and Stanford University has found that—even under heightened damage estimates—the additional mitigation costs of limiting global warming to 1.5 deg. C (relative to 2.0 deg. C) are higher than the additional avoided damages this century under most parameter combinations considered. An open-access paper on their work appears in the journal PLoS ONE

Specifically, the researchers found that under their central parameter values, limiting global warming to 1.5 deg. C results in a net loss of gross world product of roughly US$40 trillion relative to 2 deg. C and achieving either 1.5 deg.C or 2.0 deg. C requires a net sacrifice of gross world product, relative to a no-mitigation case, though 2100 with a 3%/year discount rate.

Assuming their analysis is correct, ISTM the question boils down to how much does the current generation owe to future ones, and how many generations out?

Both 1.5 C warming (world is already at 1C) and 2C warming are unlikely to be the limits to warming. 3.5C is more likely. And as the cost isn't linear, we should pay more attention to worse case.

[GRA]

I doubt that holding it to 1.5 C is realistic at this point albeit useful as a goal, and we'll probably be lucky to hold it to 2 C, barring some massive removal by sucking of atmospheric CO2, at massive energy and financial cost.

[Oilpan4]

When it goes -5c pretty much everyone dies.

[GRA]

Tonight's episode of PBS' "Nova" is titled "Can We Cool the Planet?", and covers various approaches such as atmospheric CCS, aerosol injection into the troposphere and/or stratosphere, trees, compost, synfuels, etc.

I've been reading about many of these for years, but this goes into more detail about the current state of things. Unfortunately, these techniques are at best at the early, small scale Dem/Val stage, and many of them are still in or barely out of the lab. Direct air carbon capture takes a huge amount of energy. Still, as the program makes clear, just stopping our emissions won't be enough, we'll also need to reduce the existing amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.

[Oilpan4]

Well I got 9.45kw solar panels, it snowed and was overcast yesterday. Made 0.1kwh for the whole day.
So solar power isn't going to cut it for the large swath of country that gets snow.

[WetEV]

So solar power aloneisn't going to cut it for the large swath of country that gets snow.

I fixed that for you.