His economic arguments for accepting policy costs of $100+ trillion are unfocused and wrong
Climate seems to eradicate any common sense
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
gao.gov/assets/690/687…
thoughtleadership.aonbenfield.com/Documents/2019…
When correcting for that, no increase
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.11…
update of tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
Here deaths from cold and heat in the US — similar to most other countries.
Heat deaths are small and declining (because richer people can afford aircon) whereas cold deaths are big and increasing
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
- climate costs of 2% GDP, exaggerated 4x and will change almost nothing even if CO₂ cut to zero
- unsubstantiated health costs, although cold is killing more and increasing
- a cliche on prevention
- metaphor on WWII
he wants us to spend $trillions
2-4% of GDP by 2100
nber.org/reporter/2017n…
(Inconveniently, richest world is fossil-fuel world SSP5)
2-4% warming costs of incomes 500-1000% higher is NOT existential crisis
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Cost of nothing: 3%
Smart policy, reduce temp a bit: 2.3%
Go towards Stiglitz, Greta Thunberg etc: 4% and upwards
aeaweb.org/articles?id=10…
Yes, climate a problem, yes, fix it smartly with moderate CO₂ tax and green innovation
But let's stop the ridiculous alarmism asking for $trillions with little or no argument but fear
project-syndicate.org/commentary/cli…