To wonder if the climate change message is too negative...

[Oakenbeach]

.... As there are potentially a lot of positives to global warming that offset many of the negatives.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/05/no-one-ever-says-it-but-in-many-ways-global-warming-will-be-a-go/amp/

I’m not for a moment saying we can ignore the adverse impact of global warming, and clearly we need to something about our over-consumption of plastics as that’s an unmitigated disaster, but the over-emphasis of the negatives and the ‘sack cloth and ashes’ responses aren’t reasonable imo.... I believe a large part of the solution is to focus on the development of Africa and other such places so their reproduction falls (like all other developed economies) and we can stabilise the world population and protect them from the bad sides of global warming.

Do you really think the economists haven't weighed up benefits & costs for all scenarios (do nothing, do everything, etc?)? That article is simplistic in trying to pretend the research hasn't been done. Plus the same argument has been promoted previously, at least 5 yrs ago.

Costs of mitigating climate change along with benefits of trying to mitigate it.

Do you really think the economists haven't weighed up benefits & costs for all scenarios (do nothing, do everything, etc?)?

Well it would be good to see some analysis as to why the costs outweigh the benefits... I’d be very interested to read it!

The second link simply discusses the relative costs of preventing climate changes versus the costs (excluding the benefits) believed to be generated from climate change.

Richard Tol's 2003 paper is a decent start.
Don't worry, I'm looking for a layperson equivalent.

I think we should also emphasise energy security as a benefit of acting against climate change. Renewable energy also gives local jobs instead of supporting the nasty regimes of Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Tol cited again.

"In the end, even Tol's rosy outlook on the net costs and benefits of climate change acknowledges that by 2075, climate change will do net damage."

I think the Stern Review covers what OP is asking, but it's too big for me to trawl thru.

I think we should also emphasise energy security as a benefit of acting against climate change. Renewable energy also gives local jobs instead of supporting the nasty regimes of Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Absolutely... That’s one of the key reasons I support renewable energy.

MedSchoolRat

Thank you. I’ll have a look later

A huge debate in climate research since about 1990s is how much can we adapt to climate change, mitigate the possible damage. The right wing argument is generally 'We will adapt'; the left wing argument is 'The poor never adapt very well & will suffer.'

Americans contrast expected death rate changes (due to heat or cold) related to CCh.

CCh means agricultural output increasing some places but decreasing others. Will there be enough food where people are?

Somewhere buried in The Stern Review are lots of scenarios, including no adaptation or mitigation at all. The point of CBA is to include all benefits & costs.

Purely in terms of social justice it would appear that the benefits accrue most to the developed countries who have polluted the most while the costs to those who have contributed the least

Purely in terms of social justice it would appear that the benefits accrue most to the developed countries who have polluted the most while the costs to those who have contributed the least

Whilst it is true that the richest countries are most protected from the impact of climate change and natural disasters in general, global economic growth driven by capitalism ensures that less developed countries are better off than they were without it...

Indeed, the reason for population growth in even the poorest of countries (apart perhaps from where there is war) is due to huge falls in mortality rates due to better hygiene, medicine and food supply that far exceed any increase in mortality due to climate change.

OP, I will be completely honest and say I opened this thread to ask if you were perhaps on glue, but actually, it has opened up some really interesting conversations, shared some good information etc and I feel like I'm learning new things.

Good work!

the left wing argument is 'The poor never adapt very well & will suffer.'

The left are wrong... Capitalism has been the engine of economic growth that has brought billions of poor people out of poverty (or at least made them less poor) and ensures that life expectancy in developing world (and their ability to withstand natural disasters) is far better than it used to be.

It’s no accident that recent cyclones in Bangladesh kill far fewer than they used to (the cat 6 cyclone in 2007 killed 5,000... a similar cat 6 cyclone in 1970 killed 500,000, despite the population being significantly lower).

Poor as Bangladesh is compared to the West, it is much richer than it was enabling it to build early warning systems, develop shelters and evacuation plans, and construct coastal embankments to reduce deaths.

Until the late 90s the UK govt had a policy called the Precautionary Principle. In Vernacular, that distilled down to If you don't know what the fuck you're doing, then don't do it. PP doesn't guide climate change response any more.

Instead of a PP outlook, modern voters say "Stop all the scaremongering." and "The government won't let anything REALLY bad happen". Hence we have muddled Brexit while our govt flaps about saying "But the WILL of the people must be obeyed!" (sigh)

MedSchoolRat

Read paper... Interesting read. However, the scale of unknowns are such beyond 2070 (the point at the model indicates we get poorer from climate that it doesn’t matter how well crafted the modelling is, it would be foolish to regard it as any more than one possible future scenario (among a virtually infinite number) as opposed to a prediction of the future.

What we do know is that (to date at least) increasing economic and human development —and the climate change that has resulted from it - has resulted in humanitarian benefits to rich and poor countries alike that tends to outweigh the harm caused by climate change.

The evidence to date therefore is that humanity can adapt faster than the climate changes.... And that therefore the extreme anxiety of some is misplaced.

Until the late 90s the UK govt had a policy called the Precautionary Principle.

Given everything that happened in the UK and elsewhere up to that point, I’ve no idea where you got that from! Also, if humanity had adopted such risk averse practice through its existence, we’d still be living in caves!

Placemark

Thank you for putting across this POV. I've read the big thread on climate change and have felt dazed and helpless that there is little I as an individual can do to reduce the change. An alternative view with rational thought balances my feelings and anxiety.

I'm not convinced that runaway climate change can be managed. I really don't think it's worth the risk and I don't want my grandchildren (or anyone's) to have to live with this legacy.

And who wouldn't want to live on a cleaner, greener planet, even if it means less excessive consumption (which clutters up our homes and doesn't make us happy) less meat (we eat too much anyway) and fewer flights (many of which are unnecessary)?

BellsAreRinging1

No problem! I’m no expert on this, but it strikes me that it’s not necessarily a case of either “stop further climate change” or “we’re all going to die”. The 3rd option is recognise that the possibility of successfully adapting to it, albeit in a responsible manner that recognises the dangers of significant climate change without believing it will inevitably be apocalyptic.

My view is that if we care about humanity and it’s future on this planet, the best thing we can do is spend billions ensure all countries develop their economies to withstand the impact of climate change - developing sustainable technology as we do so - rather than spend trillions trying put the genie back in the bottle.

And who wouldn't want to live on a cleaner, greener planet, even if it means less excessive consumption (which clutters up our homes and doesn't make us happy) less meat (we eat too much anyway) and fewer flights (many of which are unnecessary)?

Can’t disagree with any of that!

gain.nd.edu/our-work/country-index/

The Notre Dame university has developed an index of how vulnerable countries are to climate change, a mixture of how vulnerable and how prepared they are. The top countries are the wealthy ones who are already adapting. The lowest ones are the poorest who are mostly in sub Saharan Africa.

Some countries will see some benefits initially, eg Norway is top and their northern regions will warm up and can be used for farming.
And Norway can afford to adapt (to a point) to rising sea levels, increased flooding and extreme weather, rising food prices as worldwide food production falls.

However the lowest countries will see mass famines, water shortages, increased disease, island nations disappearing, frequent extreme weather, they won't be able to mitigate this.

Ultimately the cost of adapting to climate change will be far greater than the cost of reducing carbon output now. And we can't adapt to late climate change.

Yes some poor countries are still lifting people out of extreme poverty and as such the responsibility for carbon reduction needs to lie on the shoulders of rich countries.