For anyone writing Chris Wright stories: his conclusion that climate change is no biggie comes from a common mischaracterization of the economics literature. This could be a good opportunity to explain that to people (1/x)
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Couldn't agree more. Same issue applies to businesses trying to model future impacts of 3c scenario on their resilience, the models are just not up to scratch! Are you aware of any work done to make the high temp scenario more realistic and usable in risk modelling by any chance?
Very related news is the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries new assessment of climate risk, which is... daunting. Absolutely right that it's the unknown dynamics, or unlikely but catastrophic outcomes that are of greatest concern: https://bsky.app/profile/volts.wtf/post/3lfv7t7jsv22m
Wright claims that the damages caused by future climate change will be miniscule compared to other afflictions like malnutrition and preventable diseases. (2/x)
Ah another bad Lomborg graph, who could have guessed? Pretty sure the fires in CA this year alone will destroy more than 1% of US GDP and there are plenty more climate impacts beyond them. Ending at 2040 is a misleading choice too as climate impact costs keep rising after that.
Oh and electrifying everything and powering that all off renewables will eliminate the air pollution section of this graph. Depending on definitions it could cut health issues, trade and conflict bars too. Really we should include a big MISLEADING stamp on this graph whenever it's shared.
The whole methodology looks suspect. The graph appears to show that around 90% of world GDP was spent or lost on these issues in 1900. But more importantly, it doesn't allow for how climate change will exacerbate pretty well all of the others
But these climate damage values are drawn from models that provide extremely crude estimates of relatively easy-to-observe effects of climate change. Effects like changes in heating and cooling costs in a warming world. (3/x)
Wright misinterprets these results as estimates of *total* climate damages. I like to compare this to going outside on a cloudy night, counting the stars in the sky, and declaring an estimate of total stars. (4/x)
Climate change is daunting because of unknowns. We know sea levels will rise and freshwater will become scarce, but how will these changes spur migration and exacerbate conflicts? We know coral reefs are dying, but what are the implications of the loss in biodiversity? (5/x)
A tidy cost-benefit analysis to conclude climate is big/small deal would be nice, but climate econ models aren't up to the task of depicting the changes to human prosperity caused by today’s carbon dioxide emissions over the centuries they will remain in the atmosphere. They just aren't. (6/x)
Roman Empire guy: "the data shows very slight cooling is leading to an incremental decline in the agricultural productivity of marginal land at the periphery of the Mediterranean basin."
Emperor in toga: "doesn't sound like a big deal to me."
This is as tidy as it gets? "Necklace or your life?"
What freak would rather try and save a necklace than die and have his wife killed and his son ophaned? Has there ever been a more dangerous villain than Thomas Wayne? We are currently at the "W..WHAT IS THIS STAGE"?
An assessment of global gross domestic product loss in a so-called “hothouse” world of 3C higher temperatures by a group of 114 central banks [...], did not include “impacts related to extreme weather, sea-level rise or wider societal impacts from migration or conflict”.
Fun fact the central banks did a analysis coming to the conclusion that a moderate global warming will be less profitable than an extremer one by leaving out the costs of extreme events, sea level rise, and social upheaval. FT did an article on it.
Analogously, imagine sitting at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and trying to predict how an unprecedented problem will affect a 21st century society. The premise is absurd. Yet, these climate damage models are the evidence Wright uses to support his claim that climate risks are small. /end
Comments
Life can come at you pretty fast …
Emperor in toga: "doesn't sound like a big deal to me."
SMASH CUT TO: 1500 years of war
Recalibration of limits to growth: An update of the World3 model
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jiec.13442
What freak would rather try and save a necklace than die and have his wife killed and his son ophaned? Has there ever been a more dangerous villain than Thomas Wayne? We are currently at the "W..WHAT IS THIS STAGE"?
in the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures
(TCFD) reporting that show benign, or even positive, economic
outcomes in a hot-house world. https://actuaries.org.uk/media/qeydewmk/the-emperor-s-new-climate-scenarios.pdf