"The report, produced by the Council of Economic Advisers and the Office of Management and Budget, assesses how the economic consequences of climate change could be integrated into federal budgeting. The report’s first figure—reproduced nearby—shows 12 independent peer-reviewed estimates of how America’s gross domestic product would decline as the global temperature rises.
While the estimates differ, each shows an economic impact of less than a few percentage points for a few degrees of warming. The consensus, apart from two counterbalancing outliers, is that today’s warming of 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit has reduced GDP by less than 0.5%. That is trivial, considering real GDP has grown by more than 800% since 1950. If warming reaches 4.5 degrees—about what the United Nation’s climate panel projects for 2100 under plausible scenarios for future global emissions—the consensus reduction amounts to less than 2%. In other words, if the average annual GDP growth rate is 1.5% for the next 80 years, the economy would grow 232%. A 2% climate-change effect would reduce that growth to 225%. As physicists say, that’s a difference “in the noise.”"
I find the assumptions of the economic analysis I have seem pretty dubious. They assume way too much linearity and fungibility in the system that just doesn't appear to be there.
We are just going to keep kicking the pendulum until it transitions out of its nice linear region.
That is a simplistic description of him. From the site you quoted, which is not biased in favor of him, a quote from Koonin:
“Yes, it’s true that the globe is warming, and that humans are exerting a warming influence upon it. But beyond that, to paraphrase a line from the classic movie The Princess Bride, ‘I do not think “The Science” says what you think it says.”
Nonsense. There's a reason why Bangalore, India is the hotbed of startups, innovation , manufacturing in India because Bangalore's weather is so cool and moderate throughout the year unlike coastal cities. Climate change is a major factor in economic growth
6 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 24.0 ms ] threadThe cited report is at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/CEA-OM....
"The report, produced by the Council of Economic Advisers and the Office of Management and Budget, assesses how the economic consequences of climate change could be integrated into federal budgeting. The report’s first figure—reproduced nearby—shows 12 independent peer-reviewed estimates of how America’s gross domestic product would decline as the global temperature rises.
While the estimates differ, each shows an economic impact of less than a few percentage points for a few degrees of warming. The consensus, apart from two counterbalancing outliers, is that today’s warming of 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit has reduced GDP by less than 0.5%. That is trivial, considering real GDP has grown by more than 800% since 1950. If warming reaches 4.5 degrees—about what the United Nation’s climate panel projects for 2100 under plausible scenarios for future global emissions—the consensus reduction amounts to less than 2%. In other words, if the average annual GDP growth rate is 1.5% for the next 80 years, the economy would grow 232%. A 2% climate-change effect would reduce that growth to 225%. As physicists say, that’s a difference “in the noise.”"
We are just going to keep kicking the pendulum until it transitions out of its nice linear region.
The White House Tells the Truth About Climate Change
He's being ironic, because he's a climate change denier:
https://www.desmog.com/steve-koonin/
“Yes, it’s true that the globe is warming, and that humans are exerting a warming influence upon it. But beyond that, to paraphrase a line from the classic movie The Princess Bride, ‘I do not think “The Science” says what you think it says.”