Climate Change "Debate"

[Aeson]

Maybe doing nothing is a lot cheaper.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...nomy-billions/

So they say it costs us $10 trillion to miss by a bit more. So it’s more than double that to start with, and that’s only the cost to 2100, the costs keep adding up (and increasing in rate indefinitely)

And as they note ...

this Technical Report captures just a fraction of the potential risks and damages that may be avoided or reduced

Yah ... your source says it will cost a lot more in the long run to not address the issue.

[Kidlicious]

No. What is the present value of $10t in 2100?

[Kidlicious]

Around $90b

[giblets]

No. What is the present value of $10t in 2100?

Around $90b

The sh!t believers in capitalist ideology say...

[Aeson]

No. What is the present value of $10t in 2100?

First, you’re ignoring your own source. $10 trillion is only the increased cost between the bad and worse scenarios. It’s not the cost between ok and bad, and definitely not the cost increase from ideal to worse.

Second, you’re ignoring that your own source says they are only looking at a fraction of potential costs.

Third, the cost of addressing the issue are not all up front, yet you are treating them like they are.

Fourth, they aren’t factoring in inflation or cost of capital on the negative effects side either. So including it on the cost side is unwarranted.

In short, you are comparing a whole lot of apples to a variable number of highly leveraged round objects that may be oranges or watermelons or hand grenades.

[Aeson]

No. What is the present value of $10t in 2100?

The sh!t believers in capitalist ideology say...

It’s worse when you read his article and find out he’s pricing the suffering of millions and deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans and altogether ignoring the suffering of hundreds of millions and deaths of tens of millions around the world. And that is only a fraction of the effects in a relatively short timeframe.

I mean, I can understand a denier being unconcerned with it, as they just don’t understand the problem. But Kid takes Climate Change to a whole new level of genocidal accounting.

[Aeson]

Kid would have told Hitler that if he just took the Jewish gold and invested it in index funds, then paid a portion of it back to Israel a few decades later, he could morally have his Holocaust as his investments increased more than the price of gold.

[Kidlicious]

The sh!t believers in capitalist ideology say...

Labor has a different value in the future you stupid socialist.

[Kidlicious]

It’s worse when you read his article and find out he’s pricing the suffering of millions and deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans and altogether ignoring the suffering of hundreds of millions and deaths of tens of millions around the world. And that is only a fraction of the effects in a relatively short timeframe.

I mean, I can understand a denier being unconcerned with it, as they just don’t understand the problem. But Kid takes Climate Change to a whole new level of genocidal accounting.

Accounting is accounting. If you insist on pretending that the cost of climate change is $100 trillion because that's what it's going to cost in 81 years there is no point in this conversation because you live in a fake world.

[giblets]

Labor has a different value in the future you stupid socialist.

It's ludicrous to assume the value of labor increases at a rate of 6% a year when total factor productivity in the USA has grown by less than 1% a year on average since 1970.

[Kidlicious]

It's ludicrous to assume the value of labor increases at a rate of 6% a year when total factor productivity in the USA has grown by less than 1% a year on average since 1970.

That has nothing to do with the value of money. Notice that I only said that labor is more valuable in the future (not the same as money). If you work today you can avoid expenses in the future. So the sooner you get your work done the more valuable your output will be.

[Kidlicious]

It's very simple. If we have $90b we can invest that money (private sector is best) and have $100t in 81 years if make 6%.

[Kidlicious]

Oops I missed a zero. Not 90b. It's $891,712,621,021.50

[Kidlicious]

@8% is $196b

[Kidlicious]

What you guys don't understand is that taxpayers have to pay for this. I was being conservative with 6%. You can make 8% in financial markets. But people aren't just going to not invest in financial markets. They want to do other things like use it for consumption. In that case it's over 8%.