Global cost of hurricanes will likely decline from 0.04% of GDP today to 0.02% in 2100.
I don’t think that’s correct, but that’s also an odd thing to focus on. There’s glaciers melting, ocean acidification, forest and peat fires, heatwaves in India, and various other things. I think we’ve already seen some significant rainfall pattern changes; nobody really knows how they’ll end up, but things were set up based on existing ones, so change would generally cause some issues.
Climate-economic research shows that the total cost from untreated climate change is negative but moderate, likely equivalent to a 3.6% reduction in total GDP.
Nobody really knows.
The popular 2°C target, in contrast, is unrealistic and would leave the world more than $250 trillion worse off.
World CO2 emissions were ~37B tons last year. Complete mitigation would be ~$70/ton if done intelligently. That’s ~$2.6T/year.
Marine cloud brightening is quite possibly worth doing, but the more of it you do the less cost-effective it is, and it obviously doesn’t do anything about ocean acidification.
‘If done intelligently’ is really one hell of an ‘if’.
Yes, intelligent climate change mitigation strategies would not cost very much. (On some assumptions about nuclear power, intelligent climate change mitigation strategies might have negative cost).
But the more relevant question is the cost of the climate change mitigation strategies we actually get.
I don’t think nuclear power is currently a cost-effective approach to mitigating global warming. It only really makes sense when geopolitical concerns are a factor, eg threats to tankers transporting LNG to Europe or Japan.
Elaborate? Assuming there were no political blockers, why is it not cost effective? Is it because the energy output of a plant is limited by how far the energy can travel, and therefore you’d need many plants?
I don’t think that’s correct, but that’s also an odd thing to focus on. There’s glaciers melting, ocean acidification, forest and peat fires, heatwaves in India, and various other things. I think we’ve already seen some significant rainfall pattern changes; nobody really knows how they’ll end up, but things were set up based on existing ones, so change would generally cause some issues.
Nobody really knows.
World CO2 emissions were ~37B tons last year. Complete mitigation would be ~$70/ton if done intelligently. That’s ~$2.6T/year.
Marine cloud brightening is quite possibly worth doing, but the more of it you do the less cost-effective it is, and it obviously doesn’t do anything about ocean acidification.
‘If done intelligently’ is really one hell of an ‘if’.
Yes, intelligent climate change mitigation strategies would not cost very much. (On some assumptions about nuclear power, intelligent climate change mitigation strategies might have negative cost).
But the more relevant question is the cost of the climate change mitigation strategies we actually get.
I don’t think nuclear power is currently a cost-effective approach to mitigating global warming. It only really makes sense when geopolitical concerns are a factor, eg threats to tankers transporting LNG to Europe or Japan.
Elaborate? Assuming there were no political blockers, why is it not cost effective? Is it because the energy output of a plant is limited by how far the energy can travel, and therefore you’d need many plants?