Deaths from climate change

[AnalogPackrat]

No doubt. "Happy" was a poor choice of words. I would certainly be happier if I thought climate change need not be addressed. But it does seem that they are concerned about in the UK. Three-quarters of adults in Great Britain worry about climate change - Office for National Statistics

Worry induced by constant bombardment by doom and gloom is not proof. How many young adults have been virtually indoctrinated into this cult in school?

My mistake, I meant to write "arguing against ACTION to slow climate change".

What ACTION are you personally taking?

 

[ruffrecords]

No doubt. "Happy" was a poor choice of words. I would certainly be happier if I thought climate change need not be addressed. But it does seem that they are concerned about in the UK. Three-quarters of adults in Great Britain worry about climate change - Office for National Statistics

Indeed, as it says, they worry about the IMPACT of climate change which in practice is mostly about its impact their wallets.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Matador]

No they don't. In the UK hardly anyone is happy they are going to be forced to replace their gas boilers with expensive air source heat pumps, hardly anyone is happy they will have to replace their IC car with electric ones post 2030,

When I saw this press announcement, it said that the heat pump requirement was only for new homes, not existing homes. This applied to IC cars as well, it is only new sales, not existing vehicles. Did this change?

 

[AnalogPackrat]

When I saw this press announcement, it said that the heat pump requirement was only for new homes, not existing homes. This applied to IC cars as well, it is only new sales, not existing vehicles. Did this change?

So someone is involved in a wreck and has to replace their car with something they don't want or can't afford, but that's just fine and dandy. Or a couple scrimps and saves for years to finally build a home only to be forced to install appliances they don't want or can't afford to run, but that's not a problem. I could go on. Small doses of authoritarianism are not "OK."

 

[ruffrecords]

When I saw this press announcement, it said that the heat pump requirement was only for new homes, not existing homes. This applied to IC cars as well, it is only new sales, not existing vehicles. Did this change?

There will be no fitting of new fossil fuel boilers after 2030 as the law stands. This obviously means all new homes will be fitted with an alternative. However, boilers have a finite life (probably no more than 20 years), spares for them will dry up anyway so within another 10 years probably 50% of homes will have to upgrade. There will be no sales of new petrol or diesel cars after 2030 as the law stands but I think it will still be possible to by a new hybrid car at that time. My Ford Edge will be 10 years old at that point. I have no plans to change it but, full disclosure, I will, with luck, be 80 years old by then. As my Dad used to say "It will see me out".

Edit Just read in today's newspaper that the UK lags behind 21 other European countries at installing heat pumps. apparently. last year France installed 621,000 heat pumps saving 15.6 tonnes of CO2 (is that all) but the UK only managed 55,000. The government has set a target of installing 600,000 a year by 2028 meaning they need to increase deployment tenfold to catch up with the French.

Cheers

Ian

 

[jabe]

Do you walk your talk or just try to deflect when asked? If you aren't making any personal sacrifices (of your own volition, not after being forced by gov or "authority") that support your cause or beliefs it is perfectly rational to question your commitment to what you claim to support.

Tu Quoque logical fallacy,.
I haven't said a thing about my personal beliefs or causes. My point all along is that statements like "scientific consensus is meaningless" and "big government is coming for your pizza ovens" or your attempts to question others' commitment are bad faith arguments.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Tu Quoque logical fallacy,.
I haven't said a thing about my personal beliefs or causes. My point all along is that statements like "scientific consensus is meaningless" and "big givernment is coming for your pizza ovens" or your attempts to question others' commitment are bad faith arguments.

I didn't say consensus is meaningless, but that it isn't science and should not be used to drive massive public policy decisions as if it were. And government is definitely coming for pizza ovens, gas appliances, ICE equipment and cars, and a host of other things. Your inability to admit these actual facts is...interesting. Your personal commitment and sacrifices are the only real indicator of your beliefs. Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words.

 

[JohnRoberts]

There will be no fitting of new fossil fuel boilers after 2030 as the law stands. This obviously means all new homes will be fitted with an alternative. However, boilers have a finite life (probably no more than 20 years), spares for them will dry up anyway so within another 10 years probably 50% of homes will have to upgrade. There will be no sales of new petrol or diesel cars after 2030 as the law stands but I think it will still be possible to by a new hybrid car at that time. My Ford Edge will be 10 years old at that point. I have no plans to change it but, full disclosure, I will, with luck, be 80 years old by then. As my Dad used to say "It will see me out".

I am a huge fan of heat pump technology especially in moderate climates that can use air sourced heat exchange. Colder climates can use ground based heat exchange. The obvious problem with forced massive transition is the capital expense. There will be some pay back over time from the energy savings. I upgraded to a serious heat pump and don't think I have hit full economic break even yet, but the quality of life improvement from well managed indoor temperature seems worth the price.

The important question is how much will this expensive program impact the global climate temperature rise trajectory? There should be a cost/benefit analysis if we don't embrace the existential "end of the world" crisis arguments.

As I have already shared the projected impact from low single digit global temperature rise as a similar single digit drop in world GDP. Further the new theme of cloud formation negative feedback suggests that cloud cover rather than carbon emissions are the driving factor for global temperatures.

Edit Just read in today's newspaper that the UK lags behind 21 other European countries at installing heat pumps. apparently. last year France installed 621,000 heat pumps saving 15.6 tonnes of CO2 (is that all) but the UK only managed 55,000. The government has set a target of installing 600,000 a year by 2028 meaning they need to increase deployment tenfold to catch up with the French.

Cheers

Ian

I should have bought stock in heat pump manufacturers....

JR

 

[jabe]

I didn't say consensus is meaningless

Didn't say you did. You aren't the only other commenter in this thread.

but that it isn't science

Matador established earlier that  scientific consensus is indeed based on science.

Your personal commitment and sacrifices are the only real indicator of your beliefs.

Your desire to attack others' unstated beliefs is not something anyone is obliged to feed.
I could be the biggest hypocrite on earth, and it would prove or disprove nothing.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Didn't say you did. You aren't the only other commenter in this thread.

You quoted and responded to my comment. I can't read your mind.

Matador established earlier that  scientific consensus is indeed based on science.

But it still isn't science.

Your desire to attack others' unstated beliefs is not something anyone is obliged to feed.

I'm not attacking anyone. I asked a question that none of you are willing to answer. Your desire to force others to act on your beliefs is duly noted.

 

[Matador]

As I have already shared the projected impact from low single digit global temperature rise as a similar single digit drop in world GDP.

So Koonin appears to be commenting on this study published by the White House in March of 2023 (at least that's where the chart came from):

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/CEA-OMB-White-Paper.pdf
In the introduction section:

This White Paper outlines methodologies and considerations for integrating climate risks into the U.S. Government’s forecasts of macroeconomic conditions. Currently, the Long-Term Budget Outlook captures the fiscal effects of climate change by accounting for estimates of how climate damages affect longer-run GDP growth and how these changes in GDP growth, in turn, affect estimates of Federal revenues and spending. Importantly, climate risks could have a number of other more specific and directed effects on the Federal Budget, for instance through spending required to respond to climate change impacts or via differentiated effects on specific tax revenues,[4] which are outside the scope of this work on macroeconomic channels.

Amazing! If you eliminate the spending required to respond to climate change impacts, then adapting to climate change appears to have no impact on GDP!

In unrelated news, if I exclude all of the money I spend on capacitors and transformers, then my DIY hobby has negligible impact on the family budget. I'll go let my wife know right now!

 

[JohnRoberts]

So Koonin appears to be commenting on this study published by the White House in March of 2023 (at least that's where the chart came from):

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/CEA-OMB-White-Paper.pdf
In the introduction section:

as I shared 10 days ago... Deaths from climate change but thanks for the bump.

Amazing! If you eliminate the spending required to respond to climate change impacts, then adapting to climate change appears to have no impact on GDP!

BUT I thought climate change would destroy our GDP?

In unrelated news, if I exclude all of the money I spend on capacitors and transformers, then my DIY hobby has negligible impact on the family budget. I'll go let my wife know right now!

Good luck with that, at least it is consistent logic.
===

I read in the newspaper a couple days ago that the government has a $28B slush fund (from the inflation reduction act ) to spend on climate change mitigation in poor communities. I live in poor community but I suspect we voted the wrong way last time(s).

JR

 

[Matador]

BUT I thought climate change would destroy our GDP?

It won't if you set the costs associated with adapting to climate change to zero. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Good luck with that, at least it is consistent logic.

Huh? That is the text of the article that YOU quoted. Are we reading the same thread?

Since that is a PROJECTION based on a MODEL, let's quote some of the underlying assumptions of the analysis:

Second, GDP is not a direct measure of welfare and therefore does not capture many economically relevant impacts of climate, such as the destruction of infrastructure, the creation of new goods, or innovation.
...
Further, because these studies mostly consider only temperature variation, they do not include effects of climate change unrelated to inter-annual variation in temperature, such as sea-level rise, CO2 fertilization, ocean acidification, or changing rainfall patterns.
...
It is important to interpret these values in the context of the substantial uncertainty that underlies them and to understand these estimates as almost certainly a lower bound on total climate change costs.
...
In particular, climate change impacts may have particular implications for certain categories of Federal spending such as disaster relief or medical expenditures due to climate-induced declines in individuals’ health. These are not captured here, but work to assess these potential risks is proceeding in a complementary workstream at OMB.
...
One challenge of relying on the current literature for this application is that most estimates of marginal climate change costs take economic growth as exogenous, effectively assuming there are no substantive macroeconomic feedbacks from climate change.
...

Those are some pretty big caveats: interesting that Koonin failed to mention that these projections were a FLOOR on GDP growth effects, not a statistical span.

 

[JohnRoberts]

It won't if you set the costs associated with adapting to climate change to zero. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

The world has been adapting forever. Increasing the cost of energy just makes adapting that much more expensive.

Huh? That is the text of the article that YOU quoted. Are we reading the same thread?

Perhaps not at the same time

Since that is a PROJECTION based on a MODEL, let's quote some of the underlying assumptions of the analysis:



Those are some pretty big caveats: interesting that Koonin failed to mention that these projections were a FLOOR on GDP growth effects, not a statistical span.

That graph was an amalgam of a dozen different climate projections. His point was that any way you look at it the GDP hit from rising temperature over the nezt several decades is low single digit % loss, in the context of several hundred % increase in GDP over that same time spam, that loss from climate change is inconsequential.

That massive several hundred percent GDP growth can pay for a lot of adaptation. Even more if we don't hobble low cost energy production (that disproportionately harms the poorest among us). The climate "crisis" is IMO imaginary. Crisis language is used to help sell the public, just like the dog food "crisis" is used to sell dog food using as evidence that dogs scratch and fart. Dogs scratch and fart, climate changes, always has and always will.

JR

 

[Matador]

His point was that any way you look at it the GDP hit from rising temperature over the nezt several decades is low single digit % loss, in the context of several hundred % increase in GDP over that same time spam, that loss from climate change is inconsequential.

I got what his/your point was: and I'm saying that's not what that source says: it says it's at MINIMUM a low single digit % loss, with lots of potential for upside from there.

What would have been illustrative is if they had published the standard deviations for those projections.

 

[JohnRoberts]

VP HARRIS: "When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children can breath clean air and drink clean water."

It's "conspiracy theory de jour" when I say it but here we are with Kamala saying it out loud.

Read my lips: "The carbon they want to eliminate is you."

“When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population [pollution], more of our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water,” Harris said, according to the official White House transcripts.

Fixed it....

JR

 

[user 37518]

“When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population [pollution], more of our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water,” Harris said, according to the official White House transcripts.

Fixed it....

JR

Phew, such a relief....

 

[scott2000]

Another point about electric vehicles is your local mechanic most likely wont be able to handle the service , so your stuck paying top wack to the dealership .

Lol
https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/23...ubscription-faster-acceleration-feature-price

 

[fazer]

I guess Klause from the WEF was right. “ In the future you will own nothing, and you will be happy.”

 

[user 37518]

I guess Klause from the WEF was right. “ In the future you will own nothing, and you will be happy.”

Notice that he uses "you" and not "we"

 

[AnalogPackrat]

https://manhattan.institute/article/electric-vehicles-for-everyone-the-impossible-dream

 

[fazer]

Over the last decade, the super-commuting share of the workforce has increased threefold faster than the overall workforce.

This is the case where I live. They can’t seem to build house developments fast enough. It’s an hour to downtown Denver but the people keep coming. So Evs are workable for a drive but my daughters Honda Fit averages 39.5 mpg and is fun to drive. When the battery bank goes bad on your Tesla, isn’t it like 20k to replace. That would suck. I only paid $16k for the Honda Fit loaded.