REPORT: Fighting Global Warming Is WAY More Expensive Than Letting It Happen

money-packsSimply letting global warming happen and dealing with its effects may be a lot cheaper than decarbonizing the global economy, according to a new report by the Manhattan Institute.

“Mainstream estimates are very disconnected from the rhetoric you hear about global warming from environmental groups and politicians, especially in the wake of the election,” Oren Cass, the senior fellow at the free-market Manhattan Institute who authored the research, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“The expected impacts of climate change from even the Obama administration are substantially less than you hear from the rhetoric they’re saying,” Cass said. “This is not the end of the world.”

The study found the Obama administration’s long-running projection for the cost of global warming is about 0.1 percent of the U.S. economy per year. Government economic estimates claim that, without global warming, global gross domestic product (GDP) would have grown from $76 trillion in 2015 to $510 trillion in 2100.

Under some of the worst global warming scenarios, however, global GDP still grew to about $490 trillion in 2100. This is a $20 trillion cost, but the world is still 6.5 times wealthier than today.

Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes in its various scenarios that the people of 2100 will be between three and 20 times wealthier than people of today, despite assuming the worst possible impacts of global warming. Reducing emissions today for the benefit of people in 2100 is transferring money from the poor to the rich.

“The problem is that even if we spend the money environmentalists want, we couldn’t solve this,” Cass continued. “None of the plans proposed by environmentalists would actually accomplish anything and actually stop global warming. Instead of 3.9 degrees of warming, we’ll get 3.7 degrees of warming.”

The Paris global warming agreement would likely cost as much as $16.5 trillion between 2016 and 2030, according to projections from the International Energy Agency. If fully implemented, the agreement wouldn’t actually prevent much global warming. Even the lowest cost estimates, performed by environmental groups, place the costs at $12.1 trillion.

“The required expenditure averages about $484 billion a year over the period,” calculated Bloomberg New Energy Finance, with the assistance of the environmentalist nonprofit Ceres.

Global warming will only cost about $1.9 trillion, or 1 percent of the world economy by the same year, according to a study sponsored by the United Nations.

“The rhetoric you’re hearing about climate change is used to promote ever more costly plans,” Cass told TheDCNF. “That panic is nowhere to be found, even in the regulatory literature of the Obama administration. It’s important to not blow the problem out of proportion and claim it’s a World War 2 scale problem.”

Read rest…

Comments (2)

  • Avatar



    Haven’t we all benefitted from the world warming as we exit the recent ice age ?
    The notion that we are somehow going to influence the temperature at all let alone by .2 of a degree is sheer nonsense . If we do well great .
    Quite wasting money on a non-issue fraud . Plants and trees love CO2 and warming
    and if sea creatures get a bit more real-estate to swim in well they deserve it don’t they ? Rich Hollywood hypocrites will just have to move their precious beach plastic a few feet . Boo Ho. No one cares .

    • Avatar



      Right on, Amber ….. But
      The rich Hollywo’od hypocrites

      Aren’t as well off as most think
      That’s why they speak and embrace and prostitute to the current idiocy as encouraged by their agents to garner attention to advance, rejuvenate, and even resurrect their careers that have little prospect otherwise of being advanced.

      Ever notice that ” Tinsel Town ” is actually populated by


      HAS – BEENS and

      PHONIES ?

Comments are closed