Thursday 2 December 2010

The cost of not adapting to climate change...

According to The Environment Agency:

Global emissions of greenhouse gases need to peak in the next 10-15 years and then fall rapidly to limit future climate change to manageable levels. This is possible using technologies that are already available and would cost an estimated one per cent of global GDP by 2050. This would be a small fraction of the estimated £3.82 trillion in damages from future excessive floods, droughts, storms and heat.

Ho hum. Over the last three years, there has been an unusual amount of snow in the UK, I do not know whether this has to do with the sun spot minimum or 'catastrophic climate change'; whether it is pure coincidence or likely to continue; and/or whether it merely masks the underlying warming trend (yup, still Number One out of 6.5 million he added smugly). Neither do I know whether the estimate of lost economic output for every day that we allow snow to hinder people from getting to work etc is as high as £1.2 billion per day.

But if the warmenists have seriously pencilled in annual expenditure of £14 billion for the UK (one per cent of GDP), might it not be a good idea to spend a few quid on salt/grit, snowploughs & shovels, and maybe bunging some of the millions of unemployed people a few quid to go out and get it sorted? In theory, as long as the daily costs are less than £1.2 billion (or about 60 million man-hours, if you work on a full-cost basis of £20 per hour), we are ahead of the game.
-------------------------
UPDATE: Adam Collyer in the comments points out that the Environment Agency's maths is completely f***ed. Global GDP (sic) is about $58 trillion, so if we spend one per cent of that each year for the next forty years it will cost us $23 trillion, which is six times higher than the cumulative estimated cost of the damage of the spuriously accurate $3.82 trillion.

In return, I warmly recommend this fun with numbers post over at Adam's.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is the real cost of natural climate change when it is sold as man made.
Dumb decisions are made.
We should be spending on roads that don't pothole in the ice.
Flood defences.
Some of it seruptitiously is good insulation and efficiency are good things anyway.
Watch the floods occur again when the snow melts.
God these politicians are so bloody gullible (thick).
They should pass a law no one get's to be an MP unless they have worked for at least ten years outside of the government bubble.
Waste waste waste.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Anon, "seruptitiously"??

Do you mean "surreptitiously" or "serendipitously"?

Witterings from Witney said...

MW, I believe you said fairly recently that you are not a politician. Well dont even consider becoming one as you exude too much logical thought, which is a bad thing for a politician who wishes to be successful.

JuliaM said...

I hear - from Anna Raccoon's blog - that the French have invested in under-road heating!

Anonymous said...

Not sure what current world GDP is, but I guess around $50 trillion. Which means 1 percent of GDP even currently is $0.5 trillion per year. Obviously that will rise with GDP.

I'm not sure what the £3.82 trillion figure means, even if it's correct. Is it the total cost to 2050 or the cost per year by then?

Either way, looks to me like purely on a cost basis it's cheaper to pay the bill for climate change!

Mark Wadsworth said...

WFW, thanks (I think).

JM, in some ways, I really admire the French.

AC, very well spotted. I just glibly assumed that 40 x 1% x world GDP (sic) < $3.62 trillion (total costs, not annual).

As you point out, Wiki says annual world GDP (sic) = $70 trillion. $70 trillion x 1% x 40 years = $28 trillion.

Bayard said...

"damages from future excessive floods, droughts, storms and heat"

Odd that none of the classical writers mention these. After all they must have been having them in Roman times, it was warm enough then to grow grapes outside in York, a damn sight warmer than it is now.

Rational Anarchist said...

They have under-road heating in Iceland too - it's very cool stuff. Very eco-friendly too, as it's just geothermally heated water pumped through pipes to the houses, so why not put the pipes under roads and car parks and make them a little less insulating.

Of course the eco-friendliness is not why they do it - they do it because it's cheap and easy...

Paul said...

It's OK people, fantastic news.

http://www.greentaxreport.co.uk/read-chapters-online/12-green-taxes-in-operation?start=1

The UK is paying 2.7% of GDP in green taxes already (at least we did in 2007 and I bet they haven't gone down). So all green taxes can be cut by 60%. I'm looking forward to my refund cheque for previous overpayments.