Canadian economy will lose billions to climate change: report


mentalfloss
#1
Canadian economy will lose billions to climate change: report

A new report on the financial implications of climate change notes that while natural catastrophes are estimated to cost Canadians $21-$43 billion per year by 2050, popular economic measures like GDP fail to capture the escalation, discouraging preventative investment.

The TD report follows a recent and alarming warning by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that governments are ill-prepared for a warming world. If action is not immediately taken, the UN report projected risks could become unmanageable.

Monday’s report detailed the Canadian perspective on increasingly frequent natural catastrophes — the average number per year has doubled over the past three decades — and how by 2020 they will sap an estimated $5 billion from the economy.

“The reality is that the frequency of weather events has increased,” said lead author and TD economist Craig Alexander. “Storms that used to occur every forty years are now occurring every six years. And because of the composition of Canadian economy and society, we’re ending up with more damaging events.”

Although increased frequency is one reason that natural disasters are leading to higher costs, Alexander explained that as Canada’s economy becomes more prosperous, and more and more people move to cities, there’s that much more to lose if a severe weather event strikes.

“If you are more prosperous, it means you have more assets that are valuable to lose, like more expensive cars or houses,” he said.

The changing face of Canadian industry is also partially responsible for rising costs, Alexander said, as with maturation the focus shifts to providing services and those tend to be concentrated in urban centres.

The location of increasingly dense Canadian municipalities also plays a role.

“Many Canadian cities are located in places that are vulnerable to severe weather events. So, for example, we have cities near river mouths and coasts, like Vancouver and Montreal,” said Alexander. “We saw a lot of damage to the city of Calgary due to flooding of the river that runs through Calgary. You also have cities in the prairies that are vulnerable to drought.”

In light of the exponential costs the Canadian economy could face, the TD report notes that financial indicators and markets may not accurately reflect the disruption caused by frequent disasters.

“In the case of Calgary in the floods they had, it was a negative to the Calgary economy when the flooding occurred, but TD economics ended up having to revise upwards its forecast for Alberta because (of) all the construction that was going to happen to repair after the floods,” said Alexander.

More specifically, although the flood caused approximately $500 million in lost labour hours, its net financial impact is forecasted in the report as adding +0.2 per cent to Alberta’s GDP in 2013, and +0.4 per cent to GDP in 2014.

Outside of a popular economic indicator like GDP, Alexander said financial markets also rarely take a big dive in light of severe weather events.

“Unless it’s of the magnitude that we saw in Japan with the tsunami and the nuclear disaster, if it’s something more like the floods we had in Alberta or Toronto, the financial markets don’t tend to react very negatively to it because at the end of the day they know it’s just a disruption to activity,” he said. “There’s going to be government assistance and you’re going to see insurance being paid out … as a consequence financial markets don’t tend to respond that much.”

If financial indicators fail to fully capture the negative consequences of climate change, Alexander continued, it’s possible businesses and governments will similarly fail to install preventative measures.

“Governments have very finite fiscal resources and there’s a lot of demands on the public purse, and if the high frequency economic and financial data doesn’t show the full costs associated with natural disasters … that could lead policy-makers to underinvest relative to perhaps what’s needed to mitigate the cost,” he said.

The TD report references estimates that every dollar invested in climate change prevention — severe weather resistant buildings, for example — will yield anywhere from $9-$38 worth of avoided costs in the future.

Canadian economy will lose billions to climate change: report
Last edited by mentalfloss; Apr 16th, 2014 at 05:58 AM..
 
petros
+3
#2  Top Rated Post
Another one for the Conspiracy Theory category if we had one.
 
mentalfloss
#3
Where's the conspiracy?
 
petros
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Where's the conspiracy?

Where is the theory?
 
captain morgan
+1
#5
What the report doesn't say is that the Canadian economy will gain immensely from the benefits of localized (Canadian) global warming as the warmer temps will allow for more food production to supply the higher demand for food in those regions that are getting hit by climate change (read colder temps and a shorter growing season).

That and the energy sector can double or triple its output to provide energy to those colder areas in need of heat.

The underlying message here is that it is Canada's duty to pull more oil and gas out of the ground to help humanity
 
mentalfloss
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Where is the theory?

 
Locutus
#7
sparky cars, windmills, pots of gold and moonbeams.
 
petros
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

What the report doesn't say is that the Canadian economy will gain immensely from the benefits of localized (Canadian) global warming as the warmer temps will allow for more food production to supply the higher demand for food in those regions that are getting hit by climate change (read colder temps and a shorter growing season).

That and the energy sector can double or triple its output to provide energy to those colder areas in need of heat.

The underlying message here is that it is Canada's duty to pull more oil and gas out of the ground to help humanity

Which parts will be warmer? All the record lows set this year were because of warming. I hope it stops getting warmer because it's upping the incidents of frostbite.

More and more people are being impacted by weather events. Is it because of more weather events or more people?
 
Tecumsehsbones
+2
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Which parts will be warmer? All the record lows set this year were because of warming. I hope it stops getting warmer because it's upping the incidents of frostbite.

More and more people are being impacted by weather events. Is it because of more weather events or more people?

Somebody actually made that point down hereabouts. Said the reason hurricanes on the Gulf Coast are so much more damaging than they used to be is because vacation houses tend to cost more than unpopulated swamps.

Of course, the righteous immediately shouted him down and shut him up. Damn denier!
 
petros
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

sparky cars, windmills, pots of gold and moonbeams.

The internet is the most ecologically sound way to bitch about transit after a long drive in to work.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Somebody actually made that point down hereabouts. Said the reason hurricanes on the Gulf Coast are so much more damaging than they used to be is because vacation houses tend to cost more than unpopulated swamps.

Of course, the righteous immediately shouted him down and shut him up. Damn denier!

And in 2050 $1B will be pocket change.
 
captain morgan
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Which parts will be warmer? All the record lows set this year were because of warming. I hope it stops getting warmer because it's upping the incidents of frostbite.

I have developed a computer model that is guaranteed 100% accurate, all the time, every time.
Now, I would happily share that info with the world, but I fear that if I did, the banksters, New World Order, iBanks and various secret societies would use that info to the detriment of mankind.

Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

More and more people are being impacted by weather events. Is it because of more weather events or more people?

Funny how that relationship works, eh?
 
petros
+2
#12
Computer models never fail. Especially the wet ones that are impossible to model so I'm sure it will be 100% accurate and reliable.

It is funny. I laughed all the way into the kitchen
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

The internet is the most ecologically sound way to bitch about transit after a long drive in to work.



And in 2050 $1B will be pocket change.

You're talking about Murka, petros. $1B has been pocket change for decades.
 
petros
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

You're talking about Murka, petros. $1B has been pocket change for decades.

So then what's the problem?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

So then what's the problem?

To quote the late, great Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen (no sh*t, that really was his name!) "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money!"

That was in 1962.
 
petros
#16
In 2050 when the population is 4X what is now people today will only be on the hook for 25% if we destroy or build things today.

That is a nice bonus huh?
 
pgs
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

In 2050 when the population is 4X what is now people today will only be on the hook for 25% if we destroy or build things today.

That is a nice bonus huh?

Well every thing predicted for 2050 had already been predicted to be happening now .
Why did we get the extra 45 years ?
 
petros
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

Well every thing predicted for 2050 had already been predicted to be happening now .
Why did we get the extra 45 years ?

To scare the next generation into believing in a climate boogieman.
 
taxslave
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

where's the conspiracy?

ipcc

Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

Well every thing predicted for 2050 had already been predicted to be happening now .
Why did we get the extra 45 years ?

Supreme court struck down mandatory sentencing laws.
 
mentalfloss
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

ipcc

Really.

An organization that everyone knows about and must base their report on thousands of scientific documents that they've never written is planning a conspiracy.

That's just about the worst delivery mechanism for a conspiracy that anyone can think of.
 
petros
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Really.

An organization that everyone knows about and must base their report on thousands of scientific documents that they've never written is planning a conspiracy.

That's just about the worst delivery mechanism for a conspiracy that anyone can think of.

And real green scientists who work real jobs are NFG but IPCC are f-cking gods on high?

What a shame that real scientists don't exist outside of the "climate scientist" realm.
 
Locutus
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

To scare the next generation into believing in a climate boogieman.

I'm truly shocked that even the 'well-educated', culturally and technically hip, prog-spawn cannot see how badly they are being trolled. Even these touque-wearing retards should be able to see they're being played by big 'climate science' business.
 
mentalfloss
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

And real green scientists who work real jobs are NFG but IPCC are f-cking gods on high?

What a shame that real scientists don't exist outside of the "climate scientist" realm.

Actually numerous scientific papers from scientists of various disciplines already show that the IPCC reports in fact underestimated the degree of climate impact.

How the IPCC is more likely to underestimate the climate response

Doesn't really lend much credibility to the tinfoil hat argument.
 
petros
#24
Likely?

And the refuting papers written by non-IPCC approved authors aren't true?
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+1
#25
You wacky environmentalist are pushing me toward the deniers.
 
petros
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

You wacky environmentalist are pushing me toward the deniers.

Do you know what the best part of wacky environmentalists is? They don't believe their own kind are capable of doing the right thing if they are employed by resource companies.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#27
Man oh man... the alarmists aren't holding anything back this time.

They want Executive orders from Obama... $100 a ton... telling us to forget about getting China and India getting on board... to forget the notion that only big industry is going to have to pay their share, and that the citizenry should expect to pay more and sacrifice more.

They came out of Berlin with the gloves off people.

NUT CASES!
 
petros
#28
Nut cases doesn't even begin to define these people and it's an insult to nut cases.
 
MHz
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

And in 2050 $1B will be pocket change.

A billion isn't what it used to be , that was our tab just for security in that Toronto meeting a few years back, ......... or did 'we' get overcharged?
 
petros
#30
Hiring outsiders to do the job of officers already on payroll might be why it was so expensive.