Without climate action, living standards soared 176% to 2100 – Watt?

Eric Worrall's paper

Professor Dennis Wesselbaum believes we should act on climate change – but economic harm is not a good reason to do so.

Calculating the economic costs of climate change is tricky, or even futile – it’s also a distraction

Published: February 25, 2025 1.25pm​​ AEDT
Dennis Wesselbaum
Associate Professor, Department of Economics, University of Otago

Climate change is no longer a distant threat. It is here, real, and increasingly affects all of us.

…

The group's latest assessment report avoids the economic costs of quantifying climate change. Therefore, to understand the economic costs of climate change, we can use the best estimate based on insights from previous reports and meta-study. These analyses suggest that a temperature increase of 3.7°C would reduce global GDP by about 2.6% (range from 0.5% to 8.2%) by 2100.

…

However, this is extremely misleading. The value of 2.6% today will be very different from the value of 2.6% in 75 years.

Between 1960 and 2000, New Zealand's economy grew at a compound age of 1.4%. Using the same average growth rate, New Zealanders will improve their living standards by 184% in 2100. If nothing is done to address climate change and give the best cost estimate, our living standards are still 176% higher than they are now.

…

Even if we accept the best estimates, economic costs are not a problem, but rather save the environment.

…

Read more: https://theconversation.com/calculating-the-cormonic-cost-of-climate-change-is-is-tricky-even-futile-its-iss-solso-a-distraction-248862

The professor also acknowledged that elsewhere in the article showed that evidence for worse weather was inconclusive.

I found this article refreshing. If the degree and significance of these changes occur open, a large amount of global warming can lead to changes.

I do disagree with some of the content written by Professor Wesselbaum, and I suspect the professor's views are fragile. If you spend any time in the tropical region, you will lose this view very quickly.

I spent most of my “natural” time wondering how to deal with all the blessed palm leaves that are constantly piled up and are difficult to burn. Where is that huge flesh crammed on my lime tree? I'm pretty sure I couldn't see it last time.

If I have a flame thrower, I can remove some fast-growing tropical weeds that are invading my driveway.

In tropical areas (in my case or near tropical areas), the problem is not the retention nature, the problem is that it is difficult to hit nature to prevent it from invading your house.

The professor also overlooked other issues, such as certain climate actions (such as carbon pricing) are a powerful return tax, lashing out at the poor. Therefore, it is more likely to be eroded when deciding what climate action to take than whether local beaches suffer from erosion.

Related