There has been media attention for a report from the federal government about the possible effects of global warming. Some of the attention has focused on the president's dismissal of the report. He claimed very high intelligence, but said he isn't a believer. In the context, he seemed to be saying that he doesn't believe in much of anything, because there is something bad about belief, or some other nonsensical idea. He certainly didn't address the data or the conclusions of the report. I have my doubts about his intelligence. I don't think he is capable of reading the report and understanding it well enough to judge the conclusions, nor do I think he has any interest in making the attempt. He spouts whatever occurs to him, and gets angry if anyone asks questions, even if the questions are just due to confusion because what he says makes no sense to anyone but him.
But I did read an analysis of the report that seemed a little more substantive, and I feel like I should follow it up. The author said that the report predicted a decrease of 10% in economic growth, which other sources have also reported, but he said that was against a baseline of 300% growth by 2100, meaning our economy would drop to 290% total growth over that period with global warming factored in, if, and only if, the warming was near the maximum level in the predicted range. He goes on to say that most of the loss of growth is predicted to be due to an increase in deaths from extreme heat. He then claims that the level of warming necessary to drive this is much more than is actually predicted by the current models, and that the deaths would be easily avoided anyway.
Then he compares the effects of proposed plans to mitigate global warming, starting with a modest level, which would cost some $10 trillion, but is predicted to pay for itself, plus a little bonus, over the same period of time, and then looking at plans to hold global warming to 1.5 degrees C, as per the Paris Accords, which he says would cost some $140 trillion, and would have less than a tenth of that in benefits.
Most of the articles I've seen do little to put the predictions of the report in any context, so I can't say whether this author is giving an accurate portrayal of the report, or the projected costs, which it didn't seem all came from the report. There is a lot of uncertainty in something as complex as extrapolating global warming for 80 years, and including economic effects. It is difficult just to make accurate predictions of economic growth for 80 years, without factoring in something like a fundamental change in climate. But that is what is called for in this report, and in the process of making decisions about policy regarding global warming. I think we may be past the point of choosing modest measures, like pollution control, that would have clear benefits on health, and by extension, economic activity. I think we need to try to predict sea level rise, and how it will affect island nations and coastal areas. And what about northward migration of animals and plants? And changes in growing seasons, and milder winters, with increased insect survival, and all kinds of other factors that go into any kind of predictions of economic effects over decades.
So, I will try to track down some other information about the report. I may even have to read it, in the end. I could ask the algorithms to do this analysis for me, but they still can't figure out what I might and absolutely won't be shopping for in the next year, so I have no confidence in them.
No comments:
Post a Comment