A new economic study predicts that 90 percent of the world's population will be economically destitute following the implementation of the Paris climate change agreement. Will Trump's United States also take part in this move?
By Ran Ben Michael, Angle - Science and Environment News Agency
Climate change offensive In the global economy, an injury that will worsen without investment in dealing with it to the extent appropriate to the size of the hour. The economic damage can be identified in direct damages - such as weather hazards, diseases and waves of migration due to drought and heat - and also through the prevention of growth, as happens with the reduction of agricultural production, an increase in expenses for preparing for sea level rise, and reducing overall economic efficiency. Despite this information, some of the economic policy decisions that are made around the world do not recognize the economic potential inherent in dealing with climate change and ignore its damages.
The President of the United States, Donald Trump, as frantic and impulsive as he may be in his policies and tweets, does not waver on at least one issue: Climate change. The highlight of his work in the field was the announcement of the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, a withdrawal that will come into effect at the end of 2020. In the US, a counter movement of State governors, hundreds mayors and of thousands of heads business organizations To continue fulfilling the obligations at the local level. According to Trump, and within his concept - America is first - The main reason for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement is the damage to the US economy. Already with the announcement of the intention to retire, it was argued against her that this view expresses short-sightedness and that in the long run, precisely the retirement - especially because the USA is such a central player in the global economy - is that you hurtin economics. This position is being reinforced From a new study according to which an effort to meet the stricter goals of the agreement will lead to positive results - in the US and the world in general.
significant economic benefit
The Paris Agreement to stop global warming, which entered into force in November 2016, has so far been ratified by 178 countries. The goal is that by the end of the 21st century the average temperature around the world will rise by no more than two degrees Celsius, and if possible by no more than 1.5 degrees, compared to its level before the industrial age. This range is foundin consensus Regarding the danger posed by a change beyond him to most of the inhabitants of the planet. Along with mitigation, the agreement includes the promotion of adaptation measures to change through capacity building, technological developments and financial support.
An article recently published in the scientific journal Nature He is one of the first to analyze the economic implications of the Paris Agreement and his findings are clear: 90 percent of the world's population will be economically destitute if the 1.5 degree target is reached. Things are also said about the three countries with the greatest economic activity - the United States, China and Japan - and also about most of the other countries of the world, especially many poor countries. These are exactly the places where the temperature rises will reduce the efficiency of economic activity in many fields.
In an interview Dr. Marshall Barak, from Stanford University and one of the leaders of the research, said to International Public Radio's program on environmental issues: "Our estimates indicate that the effort to reduce warming will lead to significant economic benefits around the world." According to the researchers' assessment, the difference between a global warming of 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees may reach up to 20 trillion dollars; These are the benefits of maintaining the scale of production and its efficiency half a degree less.
The countries that ratified the Paris Agreement submit declarations of commitment to national coping mechanisms. These are steps that the countries are supposed to take to reduce their emissions and to make their population and their settlements resistant to the changes. Although most countries (174 of them) have already submitted such plans, but the cost calculations of the plans - a relatively complicated matter due to different conditions and scenarios - are only at the beginning of the road. In mid-2017, Dutch researchers presented estimate The first to put the average expenditure until the year 2030 on Aphato's efforts to achieve a goal of 2 degrees Celsius at about XNUMX percent of global GDP.
Based on the models of this estimate, the authors of the new study believe that the expenses until 2030 for a scenario of 1.5 degrees are an additional 300 billion dollars. In other words, investing in the least climate change to achieve the more ambitious goal of the Paris outline for all its benefits - an additional 300 billion dollars - has a clear return: 20 trillion dollars.
The study by Barak and his partners focused on the benefit side and did not include the costs of damages such as Sea level rise, but other studies indicate that damage prevention also has great economic value. Another assessment of the costs of the national coping mechanisms, and extending until 2050 (that is, two more decades), put the global investment at about 7.5 trillion dollars.
When this investment is measured against the future health expenses - the researchers examined premature deaths due to air pollution and ozone concentration that rise together with greenhouse gas emissions - it is found that the investment is almost always offset against the expenses. That is, even from the aspect of the health budget alone, it pays for countries to invest in the implementation of their own plans to curb climate change.
since it was published Stern report In 2006 by a team led by Sir Nicholas Stern, then the UK government's chief economist, who first assessed the economic consequences of climate change, the studies of economists and scientists consistently indicate that the payback (that is, the future benefits from preventing expected damage) exceeds the investment in the present Similar findings also arise in relation to preserve biodiversity and on the resilience of ecosystems, an issue that is the other side of the coin of dealing with climate change. Although there is methodological criticism of such long-term analyses, for example on The statistical analyzes or the ignoring of technological developments that can change the face of things, since studies indicating the positive value of climate change for the global economy are few and far between for sharp criticism.
New technologies and new jobs
There are those who argue in favor of the economic benefit of maintaining the current situation in the short term - until the technological improvement comes that will get us out of the mud - and who believe that we should continue to invest in the energy industry based on fossil fuels. However, the demand for this fuel is decreasing, not only due to climate policy, but due to technological improvements (for example in car engines), which will harm the GDP of exporters such as the USA, Russia and Canada already in 2035.
according to the researchers We have examined the investments in the oil industry, if the US stays in the Paris Agreement it will promote new technologies, and reduce the use of fossil fuels - a step that will lead to the creation of jobs and balance the loss of income from oil exports. Conversely, if the US abandons the Paris Agreement, it will still lose revenue from the shrinking oil industry, but will miss out on the development of the new labor market and will be more dependent on oil imports in favor of an outdated domestic industry.
In March of this year he published The Central Bank of Richmond - one of the 12 regional branches of the Central Bank of the USA Review according to an average summer temperature increase of 0.6 Celsius will reduce the GDP of the US states by up to a quarter of a percent; The change will be in the vast majority of sectors of the economy, including those that were previously seen as less vulnerable to the effects of climate change (such as energy).
Following the way the Paris Agreement was drafted, the withdrawal of the US will take effect, paradoxically, the day after the next presidential election in 2020. In terms of the economic return to the electorate, the body of research knowledge indicates that the next president, even if it is Trump himself, should reverse the retirement decision or at least implement the reduction policy independently. It won't be the first policy reversal in history, but it will probably pay off.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
6 תגובות
Nostradamus
Trump has explicitly said that climate change is a hoax. He said it more than once. He claimed it was a scam by the Chinese to hurt the American economy.
True, the USA is no longer the prairie of the world. Today, she is Trump's prairie dog and a friend of his.
Laurie S
Your analysis of the rise in energy consumption in East Asia and Africa is largely correct but flawed
Because you don't take into account the length of time it will take for Africa to become an energy guzzler like
Western countries. Allow me to take this opportunity to doubt the data you brought about the utilization of sources
Energy exchange in Germany. It would be interesting to read your sources of information on this matter.
To one people
say are you serious I'm talking about obvious determinism, which I already noticed 4 years ago on the science website (the editor's response was nothing short of puzzling - the Koch brothers are thwarting the development of clean energies with their own hands) and you, one of the people, use terminology that is reserved for religious people of all kinds or eccentrics - "one only needs to replace the The consumption model and the diskette in mind "Well, you are welcome to install and live only with a cellular receiver. You can light two bulbs during the day and boil water for coffee once. At night, he promises to finance you candles for a week. Then live according to your choice - the new diskette in your head is on you...
First of all, it should be noted that the energy consumption is not only due to her increase in the standard of living, but also to her unrestrained birth. However, an increase in the standard of living in the long term leads to a decrease in the birth rate and a higher awareness of ecology. To Nostradamus I can say that Trump cares more about his friends from the oil lobby than about US citizens - see the inequality data. He cut the budgets of all the bodies that work to raise awareness of global warming and claims that there is no such thing - there is enough evidence of this from the man himself. It is certainly possible to replace fossil fuel energy with renewable energy. You only need to replace the consumption model and the diskette in the head. Nuclear energy cannot come in place because of the by-products, which also have to be buried somewhere - there were already reports that the Italian mafia, which took over the disposal of these materials, simply dumped them in the Mediterranean Sea. Of course, most of the products end up in Africa, which is the garbage can of the world.
The plan to reduce emissions of the Seven West is suffering from unimaginable blindness.
India and China are in transition to comparing the standard of living of the West. After them, Africa will follow - it's only a matter of time. In order to become modern countries they must get cheap and fast energy and that's what they are doing! Therefore, coal consumption has been on the rise in recent years. ! And what is Germany doing? It subsidizes wind and solar energy with trillions of dollars, which at the same time requires power plants that work as a non-stop backup (solar manages to provide energy at best only 20% of the time) and therefore does not actually reduce even one gram of emissions into the atmosphere. This folly caused an exchange between pseudo-clean energy (wind and sun) versus giving up absolutely clean energy (atomic energy). You just have to check the global reports and freak out. Barbara Tuchman can add a chapter to the parade of stupidity.
As a site that claims to be fake news science, this breaks records. Trump has never opposed the agreements, he opposes the blatant discrimination against the US in the agreements as well as the matter of tariffs with Europe and other countries and the matter of disproportionate funding of NATO. The USA ceased to be the prairie of the world and the financier of the hedonistic and pacifist life of Europe