Skip to content

OK, fair enough

Climate crisis costing $16m an hour in extreme weather damage, study estimates
Analysis shows at least $2.8tn in damage from 2000 to 2019 through worsened storms, floods and heatwaves

OK, $300 billio a year in damages. Spending $trillions a year to deal with it is a bad idea then, isn’t it?

13 thoughts on “OK, fair enough”

  1. Same old, same old, isn’t it Tim? If it is $trillions a year in costs for the same time we save $billions a year, then bad idea. If it is $trillions a year for a while in costs and then $billions a year in savings (which may rise over time in real terms) for much, much, much longer then we need to do the detailed economics. Trouble is, we have no estimates of either future costs or future benefits that have anything like general consensus.

  2. Perhaps morally all human lives have the same value. But the original paper puts that value at $7 million. This seems a bit high for USians, about twice as high as the Dept of Transport calculates for Brits, and as for Somalis, Russians and Burmese…

    As readers of WUWT will know, hurricanes have not increased in force. The value of insured property in hurricane affected coasts has increased a lot, however.

    But it’s The Guardian. So a crock of shit.

  3. Bloke in North Dorset

    On that theme…..

    I see the SPD, Linke and particularly Greens got a pasting in the State elections in Hessen and Bavaria. One caption I saw said that trust in the greens nationwide had dropped from 62% to 34%.

    Moreover, a large part of the AfD vote in Hessen, where they are currently in 2nd place and by some distance, came from those 3 parties. You won’t see that mentioned on the BBC or in progressive circles.

  4. Bloke in North Dorset

    Any time you read that “analysis shows”, you can be sure you’re reading pish.

    Yep. It can be roughly translated as: The data has been tortured to support my position.

  5. University of Wellington? Fark orff. Have they checked their science is in line with Maori myth?

    Noy said there were a lot of extreme weather events for which there was no data on numbers of people killed or economic damage: “That indicates our headline number of $140bn is a significant understatement.”

    Yeah, of course. If we don’t know then it must be mahoosive, right?

  6. Over the past year or so there has been an interesting shift in climate alarmism. Earlier much of the alarmists output has been misleading, out of context statements, lying by omission, implying untruths while avoiding actually stating them outright etc. Now they are simply lying.

    “Analysis shows at least $2.8tn in damage from 2000 to 2019 through worsened storms, floods and heatwaves”

    Storms, floods and heatwaves are not increasing, any analysis based on the claim that they are is simply wrong. Also, even if natural disasters were on the up, there is no way that it could be demonstrated that CO2 is the cause.

  7. Here’s some useful numbers about the cost of untimely climate-related deaths.

    In the 1950s in Britain, an average of around 70,000 people died from the cold each winter. In the 2010s that number fell to around 30,000. That means global warming was saving 40,000 lives in the UK alone at a total value of $280 billion every year.

    Twice the total cost of ‘global heating’ claimed by these Kiwi sheepshaggers masquerading as academics, so no need to worry.

    And I didn’t even ask for a grant.

  8. Sure, weather damage is increasing in cost. Everything is more expensive. When the next storm hits the $12 million mansion on the beach sustains a lot more damage than the $1/4 million bungalow there previously.

  9. Guardian still blaming wildfires on climate emergency/catastrophe/crock of shit rather than poor to non existent forest and land management. Everything they say is a lie. Der Sturmer for the left.

  10. Tim – your maths there could have got you a job at the Guardian. 16 million and hour is a mere 140 billion a year. Less than half the 300 million you calculated.

  11. Those numbers just don’t stack up. Average gross global product over 2000-2019 is about $85tn per year, so this $140bn a year is 0.1-0.2% of everything.

    That’s simultaneously too much to be believable and too small to be more than a rounding error: I would bet the farm on the cost of “climate policies” to gross global product being far greater than this.

  12. This reminds me of the thing of saving Kiribati from sinking, which only has a GDP of $1bn. You could just pay every islander a million quid and let them find another place to live. Most of them would be ecstatic at that deal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *