Cost of not acting on climate change $44 TRILLION

[mentalfloss]

Cost of not acting on climate change $44 trillion

Up to $44 trillion could be going up in smoke if the world does not act on climate change, according to the latest piece of research from U.S. banking giant Citigroup.

The report – Energy Darwinism II: Why a Low Carbon Future Doesn't Have to Cost the Earth -- has forecast that spending on energy will hit around $200 trillion in the next 25 years.

The study then examines two scenarios: one that Citi describe as an "'inaction' on climate change scenario", and another that looks at what could happen if a low carbon, "different energy mix" is pursued.

"What we're trying to do is to take an objective view at the economics of this situation and actually look at what the costs of not acting are, if the scientists are right," Jason Channell, Global Head of Alternative Energy and Cleantech Research at Citi, told CNBC Tuesday.

"And those are rather alarming numbers in themselves," he added. "I mean, the central case we have in the report is that the costs in terms of lost (gross domestic product) GDP from not acting on climate change can be $44 trillion dollars by the time we get to 2060."

"So it's not a sort of a zero sum game, there is a cost to not doing this, and although there is a cost to acting, what we're trying to do is to actually weigh up the different costs here."

However, lower oil prices have dampened current desire for greater investment in renewables and energy efficiency.

"Low oil prices make it… perhaps less attractive to invest in renewables now," Channell admitted.

..more...

Cost of not acting on climate change $44 trillion: Citi

 

[Blackleaf]

Scaremongering nonsense. There is no "climate change" or global warming.

 

[captain morgan]

omg.... OMG!!

 

[MHz]

I remember back when $1B was a large amount of money. Some land speculators are looking forward to the change.

 

[petros]

For $2Billion a year climate can be regulated with SO2 if it were an issue.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Kathy Wynn probably wastes that much money in a day or 2.

 

[Locutus]

I remember back when $1B was a large amount of money

I remember when a $1B fine was big.

 

[MHz]

Scaremongering nonsense. There is no "climate change" or global warming.

Weren't you out taking pictures of last winter as it was rare?
What won't be rare for Canada is a high over the Pacific and a low over the central region and another high over the Atlantic. That means you better load up on more memory for your camera.
Might as well avoid the rush and move as far west as the Rockies and take out a homestead. Might I suggest beside the rail-line (GP to GC) towards the river as conversation laws would mean most of your improvements would be clearing up the under brush. That area is supposed to be in the Chinook belt so it will be the last part to be covered in ice.

 

[Walter]

The OP is a POS.

 

[petros]

You are right Walter.

 

[Walter]

You are right Walter.

As always.

 

[Glacier]

Not acting on Climate Change will cost 44 trillion, but acting on Climate Change will cost 444 trillion. Pick your poison.

 

[MHz]

I remember when you couldn't cause $1B worth of damages.

Acting on the right change pockets you more than you can spend.
The rain that California used to get is falling someplace else, figure that out and that is where the (non-irrigated) fields would be. That means the first person to buy land in what used to be a wasteland gains the most. What it costs the first 100 settlers gets them a bigger part of the land than the last 100 that come in.
If the winds are right BC and the 100 Mile Beach would become a holiday location that would rival Disneyland of today.

 

[coldstream]

The 'solutions' to the fabricated 'threat'.. of AGW will be catastrophic to the world economy. The targets of carbon reduction are unattainable (as well as being totally unnecessary).. without massive marginalization and impoverishment of the world's population through industrial and agricultural reduction.

The plans dove tail with the Global Free Market Agenda of creating rotating shortages of food, energy, commodities to spike profits. Ultimately the most sinister element of the AGW fraud.. will become apparent.. in population redution.. at the behest of the radical environmentalist's eco-utopia, free of the human pestilence.

It goes to show how desperate and hysterical the AGW movement has become as they throw out utter nonsense and fantasy in ever more apocolyptic fear mongering that bears no link with reality.. and as their pseudoscience is now seen by honest scientists and objective and intelligient onlookers as a JOKE.. a spook show.. without an ounce of scientific credibility.

The only realistic source of affordable energy will be carbon fuels for the next century.. and it will have absolutely NO effect of the weather. Anything else is a deal with the Devil.

 

[Glacier]

I remember when you couldn't cause $1B worth of damages.

Acting on the right change pockets you more than you can spend.
The rain that California used to get is falling someplace else, figure that out and that is where the (non-irrigated) fields would be.

You do realize that this past July was 2nd wettest July on record in California, right? 2nd wettest in 121 years. Also, you know that drought has always happened long before the industrial revolution. Weather patterns ebb and flow. You go through drought, but you always come out the other side again. Humans have no net negative effect this shift whatsoever.

 

[Corduroy]

Putting the costs of climate change into a dollar amount seems to be an attempt to contextualize but what does it actually mean? What would the world be doing with that $44 trillion dollars? Value is relative and that dollar amount is really the cost of climate change to wealth hoarders. This obsession with fabricating and accumulating wealth got us into this mess and it won't get us out. The cost of climate change is the health and happiness of the people living on this Earth.

 

[MHz]

It is the winter rains that will be missing. That is due to the warm water off of BC and Alaska rather than from the warm water further south.

Putting the costs of climate change into a dollar amount seems to be an attempt to contextualize but what does it actually mean? What would the world be doing with that $44 trillion dollars? Value is relative and that dollar amount is really the cost of climate change to wealth hoarders. This obsession with fabricating and accumulating wealth got us into this mess and it won't get us out. The cost of climate change is the health and happiness of the people living on this Earth.

The best part is they can put a cost on what it will cost to 'fix it' when they can't define what the root cause is.

 

[coldstream]

Total acreage burned in the U.S. was about 4 million in 2014. Compared with an average of 9 million in the last decade. It seems this year, despite all the breathless media accounts.. will be relatively moderate.. with California accounting for about 600k acres through the peak of the brush fire season.

 

[Walter]

Total acreage burned in the U.S. was about 4 million in 2014. Compared with an average of 9 million in the last decade. It seems this year, despite all the breathless media accounts.. will be relatively moderate.

Facts don't matter.

 

[petros]

Putting the costs of climate change into a dollar amount seems to be an attempt to contextualize but what does it actually mean? What would the world be doing with that $44 trillion dollars? Value is relative and that dollar amount is really the cost of climate change to wealth hoarders. This obsession with fabricating and accumulating wealth got us into this mess and it won't get us out. The cost of climate change is the health and happiness of the people living on this Earth.

For $2Billion a year climate can be regulated with SO2 if it were an issue.

Any questions?