One Finite Planet

What is the real cost/risk generated by ‘Climate Catastrophe’?

To the left there is a graph, from a site supporting climate action, trying to put a cost on inaction. This graph has no data for prior to 2100. From the graph, the cost in 2100 will be double The cost on 2100 will be less than double the cost of inaction, and in 2200, the cost of inaction will be around 2.2 times the cost of action.

I do believe in a potential climate catastrophe. But just using terms like catastrophe is in the end, meaningless.

This data above seems like far less than a catastrophe, that might eventuate sometime after every one alive today has died. I personally believe there is a catastrophe pending with things on their current course. What is required is an attitude that does not stop at “oh, it is too horrific to contemplate!” and arrives are real numbers that will make hard headed people invested in other beliefs will respond.

Consider:

  • most political leaders are in office for ten years or less (other than dictators, who are difficult to persuade anyway)
  • the cost of action is definite and measureable, to cost of inaction is based on forecasts and has a degree of uncertainty
  • the cost of action is now, the cost of inaction is in the future
    • in accounting perspective, costs with a degree of uncertainty

Can we get the real cost?

Reality is, if the costs of the above graph are real, than we do not have a significant problem, and this becomes an economic argument for inaction. Again, I do believe action is imperative, the case simply is not being put in the right terms. The challenge here is to put the real cost into tangible terms. Without managing this, real change will be relatively token. Just using terms such as ‘catastrophic’ will persuade anyone who does not already believe.

This post is largely a placeholder for the moment. I will add to it as I find the material. For now, the point is that the consequences of climate change are often only in qualitative unmeasurable terms, and this alone is not enough.

Comment?

Table of Contents

Categories

The EV climate change lag problem: Don’t buy an EV just to save the planet.

The bad news is EVs won’t help in time to keep global warming below +2.0oC, or reduce emissions in the critical years up to 2040. The EV transition means things still get worse before they get better, until late as 2050. The problem is not the ‘long tailpipe argument‘, but the challenge of the transition to EVs. EVs do, over their lifetime, result in a reduction in emissions, but the whole process can take decades, does not alone solve immediate climate problem. Emissions can even be worse if too many people buy EVs too soon.

Read More »

Big Oil, AKA Big Fossil: How real, and what about ‘big climate’?

It is clear that significant funding is directed to promoting the continued use of fossil fuel.

Time after time I find the need to make this claim, and as I do not make claims without supporting evidence, so each time it triggers a search for supporting evidence.

I have now decided to create a page with links to supporting evidence, as an improving over multiple pages each linking directly to one or two pieces of the puzzle.

For balance, I examine the idea of ‘big climate’ or ‘big science’, being a source of funding bias data applied against the arguments of ‘big oil’.

Read More »

Home Charging: The Challenge To A Green Equitable EV Transition

Moving to EVs is going to increase electricity requirements, and at a time when there is already a technical challenge to more the electricity supply to “green” source. But what it electric vehicles could solve the “green power grid” problem, provide energy security, and avert a threat of increasing inequality? It turns out dream scenario is definitely possible, but can be fully realised only if the home charging problem be solved.

Read More »

Covid-19 & Vaccination Deaths: Statistically, Coincidences will distort reported deaths.

I read recently about reasonable people protesting over post vaccination deaths in South Korea, echoing stories from around the globe about the underreporting of deaths following vaccination.

Can most of these deaths be just coincidences? This question has me seeking the real story on what is happening, not just with deaths following vaccination, but also with deaths from the virus. Almost one year after my initial exploration of vaccine efficacy and safety, now there is data, not just projections, so it is time for a review, and this question needs answering for any such a review.

Read More »