The second article doesn't seem to really make sense. The author says:And yet, he fails to provide any evidence that suggests the failure of the TPP deal would result in a loss of $22tn dollars, which is about 30% of our current global GDP. The fact that we stand to gain $3tn dollars from taking action, like in this trade deal, does not make it the same if we are still making a net loss of $19tn.
Nor do the economic figures account for the immense loss of life, livelihoods, and damage to ecosystems the world over that climate change is predicted to, and in fact is already starting to cause. I don't believe that's threatened by a TPP deal either.
In short his comparison seems disingenuine, if not down right ridiculous.
As for the first article, there is a recent 2016 study from LSE that does what the author tries to but in a peer-reviewed journal. And it finds the following:
(Interestingly, another study from Stanford tackles this from the angle of economic productivity as affected by climate, and finds that unmitigated warming will reduce global incomes by 23%, ouch.)
However, neither of these articles appear to account for the financial gains that are to be had from mitigitating climate change by investing in renewable energies. Which a recent IFC study, in terms of the Paris Climate Agreement, reports as offering $23 trillion in investment opportunities (excluding the US because, y'know, they quit).
Which would make our net loss like $0. But don't touch my clean coal.
Last edited by Beniboybling on Jan 27th, 2018 at 02:04 PM
I find this point, to be really funny. When talking about a trade deal, he is speaking abstractly and is just trying to note the lack of climate change damages. Murphy does not even support the TPP and its a loss of 22 trillion over a 50 or 100 year period. The economic figures are meant to account for all of those things. The IPCC, the leading source on climate change, produces the statistics to represent the "social cost" of climate change. The TPP is a really shitty example perhaps NAFTA would be better. NAFTA has increased trade between Mexico and in the US drastically and over a 50-year time horizon would probably have a 20 trillion dollar effect on GDP. It is funny that you think a single study outweighs the IPCC and over ten studies cited by Murphy. Regardless, you are completely misrepresenting the study. Murphy and the study are looking at two different things. The study even noted this in its header:
Your study is analyzing asset values rather than effect on GDP. And the effect on Global Assets seems quite nominal,
So, climate change regulation seems to make investment less risky by about 0.2 percent. The effect on global GDP matters far more than the risk on investment especially considering how nominal that risk is. You are either being dishonest or do not understand basic economic language.
The articles cited do account for the gains. The articles are using data directly out of the International Panel of Climate Change. The IPCC is the most credible source on climate change in the world. Did you even read it?
I tend to be on the side of those advocating for man-made climate change. I just think we need to run a cost-benefit analysis. And as shown in the articles above, regulation and taxation have a more deleterious effect than climate change does.
Interesting, and if the cost effectiveness thing is true it seems the best thing to do now is merely just strive to eventually create better ways of doing things that do not impact the climate as much, as opposed to trying to hamper certain ways of doing things now.
__________________ "I know it's gonna work because it's impossible"-George Lucas
"Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners"-George Carlin
My thoughts exactly. End the wars, try to convert to electric cars, and support renewable energy when possible. Also, the advent of the driverless cars should severely decrease traffic which would also massively reduce C02 emissions.