Purdue University President Mitch Daniels is a climate science denier. He’s invited Steve Koonin, author of “Unsettled” to speak on campus this week, and has received some blowback. In his WaPo editorial of 10/12, Mitch Daniels defended Koonin and cited this: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-Chap10_FINAL.pdf
which, honest to God and much to my surprise, does say in right there on page 662:
"For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers (medium evidence, high agreement). Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change. {10.10} "
What in the world? Can someone provide context for this? How is the IPCC saying - in effect - climate change is no big deal? I’m baffled.
Yes, I’ve read that - and I don’t see an answer regarding the specific cite used by Daniels. Why in the world does chapter 10 of IPCC 2018 undermine the points made elsewhere?
I don’t read it the same way at all. From the opening paragraph, the key line to me is:
I read that as saying “If none of the above changes takes place, climate change won’t cause major issues in some economic sectors, relatively speaking.” I completely agree with that. The problem is that climate change is absolutely going to change the above attributes in many ways and many places and that will likely dwarf the impact that a two degree temperature increase will have on Omaha, NE. barring the above changes.
Tourism might have the same economic outcome as it does today, but it might have all moved from beaches in the Caribbean to the newly snow-bound slopes in North Georgia. If the East and West coasts are no more for a few miles inward, mass migration to the inner states will have a huge impact on a location’s population, income, relative prices, lifestyle, regulations, etc.
The important phrase is “relative to.” That does not imply that climate change is no big deal. Rather, its impact is smaller compared to other predicaments that affect humanity. Unfortunately, these predicaments are connected to and amplify each other.
Similar issues can be seen in the article I shared: the misdirection involves looking at only global area burned. It does not look at frequency and intensity.
One way of looking at the issue is to see it in light of climate change plus environmental damage and limits to growth. The latter is explained here and hinted at in the second sentence of what was quoted:
How can you possibly get that from what is the clear meaning of what they are saying? Read the whole chapter. For example, they also say this:
That is a relatively small effect for that far in the future. For reference, at an annual GDP growth of 2.5%, global GDP will be seven times higher in 2100 than it is now. If climate change reduces our income by 2% at that point, we will still be vastly wealthier than we are today.
On the other hand, if stopping climate change reduces annual GDP growth by 0.5%, then instead of being seven times richer by 2100, we’ll be 4.77 times richer - an effect that swamps the effect of climate change because the losses would start soon and compound each year, while negative climate change effects will be largely back-loaded.
And yes, the variability in the other factors mentioned (population growth, technological advancement, social conditions) result in larger swings in future wealth than climate change. Read the rest of the chapter and they explain why - with the caveat that much of the analysis is of medium or low confidence, because the future is impossible to predict. These are essentially best-guess forecasts, but nothing you’d want to take to the bank.
As a reminder, economic forecasts by the very best are generally no better than random chance once you get more than a year or two out, because the future is a random walk full of unknown unknowns. The best argument against climate change is not found in specific numbers, but in the fact that we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, and we don’t know what will happen exactly.
Again, I don’t disagree that globally, the economic impact could be smallish. My point was that it will shift, and likely greatly, which is what that statement about relatively large changes to the other attributes is all about. If me and Elon Mush swap places, we’ll still average out to be 100 billionaires, but my life and his life would likely change drastically.
Reading the report it appears that its based on an oddly specific set of economic sectors: tourism, heating and cooling, health services, transportation and Insurance. As far as I can tell, they offer no explanation why those chose those sectors, but it looks fishy to me. They don’t, for example, take a look at agriculture which is a huge segment of the economy for many countries, and will be majorly affected by climate change. IMHO ignoring that sector falls in the area of, “Well aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?”