Life rules to shoot in 176% for 2100 If there is no climatic action, will it see with that?

Eric World essay

Teacher Dennis Wesselbaum He believes that we should act on climate change, but economic damage is not a good justification to do so.

Calculating the economic cost of climate change is complicated, even useless: it is also a distraction

Posted: February 25, 2025 1.25PM AEDT
Dennis Wesselbaum
Associate Professor, Department of Economy, University of Otago

Climate change is no longer a distant threat. It is here, it is real and we are increasingly affecting us all.

…

The last panel evaluation report avoids quantifying the economic costs of climate change. So, to understand the economic costs of climate change, we can use the best estimate based on the Previous report and finishing ideas studies. These analyzes propose an increase in the temperature of 3.7 ° C will reduce the global gross domestic product (GDP) by approximately 2.6% (varies from 0.5 to 8.2%) in 2100.

…

However, this comparison is extremely misleading. The value of 2.6% today will differ substantially 2.6% in 75 years.

The New Zealand economy grew at an annual rate composed of 1.4% between 1960 and 2000. Using this same average growth rate, the New Zealand will have a standard of living 184% higher in 2100. If nothing is done to address climate change, and given the best cost estimate, our standard of living will still be 176% higher than it is now.

…

Even if we accept our best estimates, economic costs are not the problem, but saving the environment is.

…

Read more: https://theconversation.com/calculating-the-economic-cost-fclimate-change-is-ticky-ven-futile-its-also-a-distraction-248862

The teacher also admits in another part of the article that the evidence of a more severe climate is not conclusive.

I found this article quite refreshing. Significant global warming would cause changes if it occurs, although the scope and importance of these changes are open to debate.

I do not agree with something that Professor Wesselbaum wrote, I suspect that the teacher has the opinion that nature is fragile. Lose that opinion very quickly if some time living in the tropics.

I spend most of my “nature” time wondering what to do with all those blessed palm fronds that continue to accumulate and are difficult to burn. And where does that succulent giant that was filling my tree of Lima? I am quite sure that it wasn’t there the last time I looked.

If I had a flame pitcher, you could knock down some of those fast -growing tropical weeds that are infesting my entrance path.

In the tropics (or near the tropics in my case) the problem is not to preserve nature, the problem is to hit the nature strong enough to avoid invading your home.

The teacher also overlooks other problems, such as the fact that some climatic action, such as the price of carbon, works as a powerful regressive tax that hits poor people. Therefore, there are more considerations when deciding which climatic action, if any, than if the local beach suffers greater erosion.