Across the world, public finances are stretched dangerously thin. Per-person growth continues dropping while costs are climbing for pensions, education, health care, and defense. [emphasis, links added]
These urgent priorities could easily require an additional three to six percent of GDP. Yet green campaigners are loudly calling for governments to spend up to 25 percent of our GDP, choking growth in the name of climate change.
If climate Armageddon were imminent, they would have a point. The truth is far more prosaic.
Two major scientific estimates of the total global cost of climate change have been published recently. These are not individual studies, which can vary (with the costliest studies getting copious press coverage).
Instead, they are meta-studies based on the entirety of the peer-reviewed literature. One is authored by one of the most cited climate economists, Richard Tol; the other by the only climate economist to have won the Nobel Prize, William Nordhaus.
The studies suggest that a temperature increase of 3°C by the end of the century — which is slightly pessimistic, based on current trends — will have a global cost equivalent to between 1.9 and 3.1 percent of global GDP.
To put this into context, the United Nations estimates that by the end of the century, the average person will be 450 percent as rich as he or she is today. But because of climate change, he or she will feel “only” 435-440 percent as rich as today.
Why is this so different from the impression we have been given in the media? Alarmist campaigners and credulous journalists fail to account for the simple fact that people are remarkably adaptable and tackle most climate problems at a low cost.
Climate change is a problem, not a catastrophe
Without climate change,
51% more calories than in 2010
But climate makes food production harder? Yes
With global warming ‘only’ 49% more calories than in 2010https://t.co/XvS1S9MH6z https://t.co/HGxT7Msfek pic.twitter.com/65x5LYsN0C
— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) July 31, 2024
Take food: Climate campaigners warn we’ll starve, but research shows that instead of a 51 percent increase in food availability by 2100 if there were no climate change, we are on track for “only” a 49-per cent increase.
Or weather disasters: they killed half a million people annually in the 1920s, whereas the past decade saw fewer than 9,000 fatalities a year.
The 97.5 percent reduction in mortality is because people are more resilient when they’re richer and can access better technology.
Climate-related disaster deaths have declined 97.5% over the century
Richer, smarter, and more resilient societies reduce disaster deaths
This swamps any potential climate signal
Why is this not reported?
Instead, media only delivers climate doomhttps://t.co/jtzR9CWCV4 pic.twitter.com/c28cso7UFJ
— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) January 1, 2025
Extremist climate campaigners and far-left politicians reveal their true colors when they push for “degrowth” to cut emissions.
Making people worse off and reversing gains against extreme poverty would be a tragic mistake, making it harder to address all our other problems. Moreover, it is laughable to think the West’s strategic adversaries, such as Vladimir Putin, will embrace a similar approach.
More responsible politicians “only” want to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. But this approach still means slowing growth in the name of climate change, by forcing businesses and individuals to use less-efficient green energy instead of fossil fuels.
The total costs would be enormous — US$15-US$37 trillion every year for the rest of the century, equivalent to 15-37 percent of global GDP today.
Given that wealthier Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries will foot most of this bill, the price tag will be the equivalent of each person in the rich world paying over US$10,000 every year.
The cost is likely to top several trillion Euros, yet the entire effort will merely reduce temperatures by the end of the century by a trivial 0.004°C.
Not only will this be politically impossible, but the benefit will be a far smaller one percent of GDP across the century.
The real cost of inefficient climate policy is that it distracts resources and attention from other priorities. Europe offers an object lesson.
Twenty-five years ago, the European Union proclaimed that with massive investments in R&D throughout the economy, it would become “the most competitive and the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world.”
It failed abjectly: innovation spending hardly budged and the EU is now far behind the United States, South Korea, and even China.
Instead, the EU switched focus and in its myopic climate obsession opted for a “sustainable” economy over a sound one. The EU’s decision to increase its 2030 emission reduction targets was pure virtue-signaling.
The cost is likely to top several trillion Euros, yet the entire effort will merely reduce temperatures by the end of the century by a trivial 0.004°C.
Not focusing on innovation has stunted Europe. The Euro area has seen anemic annual growth over the past decade of just over one percent per person.
For the two trillion euros it has spent on symbolic climate policy, the EU could have lived up to its innovation spending targets over the last two decades.
Read rest at National Post
Providing that Bill Gates wants to have us eating some kind of goop and wants to own all the Nations Farms and the useful idiots trying t o force their Plant Based Garbage and Lab Meat upon us if their not already trying to push bugs upon us
When talking about food the article over looked an important point. Higher carbon dioxide levels has acted like a plant fertilizer and increased the production of many crops.