Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Climate change: which is cheaper, adapting or preventing?

If you're wondering, you haven't been reading here very long.  It appears that the proposed spending to "prevent climate change" will cost the USA $7 Trillion more than the "damage" caused by the climate change.

Numbers are from GAO and IEA.  Warning: there's math here, although it's basic Net Present Value analysis.

Bottom line: under typical planning assumptions, it's far more costly to implement climate change programs than it is to let things run their course.

Implication: Environmentalism makes poor people poorer.  $7 Trillion could fun a lot of programs for poor people.  "Being Green" is just more Rich People's Leftism.


Reg T said...

The cheapest method would be to simply ignore it, since human activity has absolutely nothing to do with it. Even if we could devlop a way to shied the Earth from cosmic rays and the effects of the sun on climate, we still wouldn't know enough to deal with the true complexity of climate, and would likely just screw up - or not have any effect at all.

Murphy(AZ) said...

Adapting, you do what's necessary and practical. Preventing will result in wild spending for all sorts of pie-in-the-sky b.s. that may or may not work.

Ken said...

Remember that the people pushing "prevention" the hardest want 90% of us dead, and prepare accordingly.