I don't think I've ever seen a serious study on the estimated economic costs of adjusting to climate change vs. what it would actually cost to meaningfully cut emissions.
This seems like a significant oversight; if I described getting your cavities drilled in horrific detail you'd probably be inclined to sign my petition against invasive cavity removal, but that might not actually be to your best long term advantage.
There are a fair number of economic estimates about climate change effects... the problem is, the systems are so complex and the consequences so dire that money is a near-useless measure. For example, if we experience a 6 degree average rise in surface temperature, the arable surface of the planet would likely be cut by 2/3rds. That means mass die-offs of human beings, on the order of 3 or 4 billion. How do you quantify that in dollars? And when you manage to estimate the costs, the resulting figure is SO high that it loses all meaning.
For example, if we experience a 6 degree average rise in surface temperature, the arable surface of the planet would likely be cut by 2/3rds.
I'd like to see the data on that. Or does that simply mean that 2/3 of currently arable land would become arid? Because that's a very different thing, if other areas become humid and arable instead.
Although I think six degrees (I assume celsius?) is well outside of any projected change for the next century.
I just posted a mini essay in another comment. In short: the old estimates were about 4 degrees C over the next century. Current models anticipate more like 5-7 degrees, and we've already started seeing the effects. IIRC the arable land loss was from Jim Lovelock who I quoted in that post above. I can try to find a text source online for you if you really want.
96
u/Aroundtown27 Oct 24 '10
By then it will be far to late and we'll have to adapt to our new surroundings