A research paper claims that if the world stays at 2 degrees celsius of warming versus going up to 4 degrees celsius of warming then the world economy will be US$17.5 trillion per year stronger in 2100. At 4 degrees Celsius of global warming, the losses in income to the global economy are claimed to be over US$23 trillion per year, or the equivalent in economic damage of three or four 2008 Global Financial Crises each year. They claim the damages represent roughly one-third of current global GDP and about 7% or more of projected GDP in 2100.
They projected post-2008 financial crisis european growth onto the world through 2100
7% of world GDP in 82 years is trivial. If instead of the world economy doubling every 27 years, the world economy doubles every 41 years. The world economy in 2100 would be half of its potential size.
If the World economy could double every 20 years then the world economy would be double the size of doubling every 27 years and four times the size of the doubling every 41 years.
27 year doubling needs 2.6% sustained world GDP growth.
20 year doubling needs 3.6% sustained world GDP growth.
41 year doubling needs 1.75% sustained world GDP growth.
The researchers forecasted world economic growth of about 1.3%.
The researchers were projecting post 2008 financial crisis European GDP growth rates for the whole world through 2100.
China economy currently underperforms by about 7% because air and water pollution damage. China had fast economic growth for almost 50 years is about 30 times bigger than it was in the 1970s. The cost of 7% air pollution was economically worth it. China now needs to spend to clean up the damage.
It can be a worthwhile economic tradeoff to grow faster and then fix and clean up afterward.
Economy in 2100 – $250 trillion or $700 trillion or $1400 trillino or more
The paper is projecting a global economy in 2100 of $250 trillion.
The world economy would roughly double in size by 2045 if it grew at an annual average rate of around 2.6%. Doubling every 27 years would mean a world economy eight times larger in 2100. This would be a $700 trillion economy on a nominal basis.
6 trillion more tons of additional CO2 or 2 trillion tons, 1 trillion tons of CO2 by 2100
The current reality of the Paris Agreement is mostly empty promises that will not meet the stated targets.
The Paris Agreement on climate is talking about emitting 745 billion tons of CO2 between the beginning of 2017 and the end of 2030 instead of 770 billions tons of CO2. This is the max if commitments were met. Currently we would be very lucky to get to 5 to 8 billion tons of total lower emissions because most countries are falling well short of slowing the increased CO2 emissions.
Solar and Wind and total world electricity
The world was using about 24,255 Terawatt hours of electricity in 2015. This has been increasing by 2 to 3% per year. This is now about 26,200 Terawatt hours in 2018. 780 TWh was added in 2017.
Renewables accounted for nearly half of the global additional generation (at 380 TWh) required to meet increasing demand, bringing their share in global generation to a record high of 25%. This was mostly hydropower in the overall generation. 4185 TWh of electricity generation was from hydro power in 2017. Hydropower could almost double by 2050, reaching 2,000 GW of global capacity and over 7,000 TWh.
Global solar power is projected to go from 500 TWh in 2018 to about 900 TWh in 2022.
Global wind power is projected to go from 1200 TWh in 2018 to about 1600 TWh in 2022.
This will cost about $1 trillion in energy build out over 5 years.
800 TWh of new solar and wind electricity. The world will add about 3500 TWh of electricity generation from 2018 to 2022.
The world is spending about $1.8 trillion per year on total energy buildout. Oil, natural gas and coal are the largest energy spending.
Fossil Fuel Subsidies are 6.5% of world GDP.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Going forward the cost of Climate Change will not be 7% of the economy. It will grow exponentially until it is more than 100% of the economy. Yes, it will start destroying value faster than the economy can grow.
China did not have to pollute to grow. No one has to. The minute you start polluting there is an immediate cost and a long term cost. That cost far out weights the expense to not pollute. The problem is that society as a whole pays the cost of pollution while corporations reaps the profit of polluting.
Going forward the cost of Climate Change will not be 7{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the economy. It will grow exponentially until it is more than 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the economy. Yes it will start destroying value faster than the economy can grow.
China did not have to pollute to grow. No one has to. The minute you start polluting there is an immediate cost and a long term cost. That cost far out weights the expense to not pollute. The problem is that society as a whole pays the cost of pollution while corporations reaps the profit of polluting.
This, its limits to growth, as in how much you can use. We are there with food and drink, you can always increase quality but that fast become status. Power also has limits. Power use in Europe is pretty stable, yes this is in part idiot politic and in part exporting industry to China, but still it would be limits. Even if you go nuts and want Stockholm to be tropical or similar you are hard limit because of global warming, no not co2 but simply as your added energy simply heat earth. Solution is to go into space but again how much can you use? Population will start to age and drop unless radical life extension anyway.
Direct extrapolation almost always results in silly predictions after certain point. Besides, what’s the problem of being a “plague” in the universe? I’d call seeding life into the universe and a net improvement over an empty dead cosmos!
we need to start considering zero growth economic models or become a plauge [sic] on the universe.” And there it is.
Looks like solar PV is on track to pass hydro in say two decades. /sarc
China did not have to pollute to grow.” Huh? I’m old enough to remember when three gorges was going to provide 20% of China’s electricity… only to find that need far outstripped the ability of mega projects to provide.
27 year doubling would lead to us needing a dyson sphere in as little as 400 years…….we need to start considering zero growth economic models or become a plauge on the universe.
From a thermodynamics standpoint these economic growth levels are impossible without moving the heat to space.
This its limits to growth as in how much you can use. We are there with food and drink you can always increase quality but that fast become status.Power also has limits. Power use in Europe is pretty stable yes this is in part idiot politic and in part exporting industry to China but still it would be limits. Even if you go nuts and want Stockholm to be tropical or similar you are hard limit because of global warming no not co2 but simply as your added energy simply heat earth. Solution is to go into space but again how much can you use?Population will start to age and drop unless radical life extension anyway.
Direct extrapolation almost always results in silly predictions after certain point.Besides what’s the problem of being a plague”” in the universe? I’d call seeding life into the universe and a net improvement over an empty dead cosmos!”””
we need to start considering zero growth economic models or become a plauge [sic] on the universe.””And there it is.”””
Looks like solar PV is on track to pass hydro in say two decades./sarc
China did not have to pollute to grow.””Huh? I’m old enough to remember when three gorges was going to provide 20{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of China’s electricity… only to find that need far outstripped the ability of mega projects to provide.”””
27 year doubling would lead to us needing a dyson sphere in as little as 400 years…….we need to start considering zero growth economic models or become a plauge on the universe.
Or start building a dyson sphere in 350 years; either way it works 😉
I don’t think the economic costs of pollution so far are comparable to the submersion of coastlines and costs of weather extremes to both people and agriculture. I think its pretty obvious that trying to fix this after it happens is either going to be impossible or incomparably more expensive than prevention.
Assuming the universe is dead i would mostly agree. If its not we will be a cancer soon. Our growth rate resembles a explosive cancer on a geological scale it is simply unsustainable. Post singulairty life indeed is difficult to predict but not impossible. We need to double power ever 27 years? Seems like a tall order. The biodome is doomed we should ark what we can asap.
Yes PV will probably bypass hydro soon, making it more like an battery. However making predictions for year 2100 is just as stupid as making them for today in 1936. All you predictions will be wrong, Both nuclear power and PV was unknown in 1936, together with stuff like the transistor and penicillin and obviously WW2 🙂
Geez lol did i say a bad word.
From a thermodynamics standpoint these economic growth levels are impossible without moving the heat to space.
Or start building a dyson sphere in 350 years; either way it works 😉
I don’t think the economic costs of pollution so far are comparable to the submersion of coastlines and costs of weather extremes to both people and agriculture. I think its pretty obvious that trying to fix this after it happens is either going to be impossible or incomparably more expensive than prevention.
Assuming the universe is dead i would mostly agree. If its not we will be a cancer soon. Our growth rate resembles a explosive cancer on a geological scale it is simply unsustainable. Post singulairty life indeed is difficult to predict but not impossible. We need to double power ever 27 years? Seems like a tall order. The biodome is doomed we should ark what we can asap.
Yes PV will probably bypass hydro soon making it more like an battery.However making predictions for year 2100 is just as stupid as making them for today in 1936. All you predictions will be wrong Both nuclear power and PV was unknown in 1936 together with stuff like the transistor and penicillin and obviously WW2 🙂
Geez lol did i say a bad word.
Well by 1936 a lot of people figured that WW2 was coming. Especially those people in places like China where it had already started. But mostly they thought it would be like WW1, lots of trench warfare and fairly static. Even the English and French military were making plans based on this assumption. But your overall point remains. NOBODY in 1936 was predicting that the headline concerns of today would be a big deal. Half of the issues would not even make sense to them.
Well by 1936 a lot of people figured that WW2 was coming. Especially those people in places like China where it had already started.But mostly they thought it would be like WW1 lots of trench warfare and fairly static. Even the English and French military were making plans based on this assumption.But your overall point remains. NOBODY in 1936 was predicting that the headline concerns of today would be a big deal. Half of the issues would not even make sense to them.
The only major country who has reduced Co2 emissions per capita is the U.S. which is now back at late 1950’s/early 1960s levels despite an economy 25x bigger. Oh, and they aren’t part of the Paris agreement. As for this paper from Australia, it is caveated with significant amounts of “random unknowns” that could impact GDP. They have essentially added up everyone else’s country level studies and plugged in the rest of the missing country data. Furthermore, they “forgot” to mention the most glaring error in their “analysis”. That is, because the earth has ALREADY been warming >1deg since 1940, why hasn’t GDP then been negatively affected according to the model? For some unexplained reason, for all temperatures greater than from today (literally as of tomorrow), global GDP will slow down over time! That is what their “1 degree increase” model says. In other words, manure statistics.
The only major country who has reduced Co2 emissions per capita is the U.S. which is now back at late 1950’s/early 1960s levels despite an economy 25x bigger. Oh and they aren’t part of the Paris agreement. As for this paper from Australia it is caveated with significant amounts of random unknowns”” that could impact GDP. They have essentially added up everyone else’s country level studies and plugged in the rest of the missing country data. Furthermore”””” they “”””forgot”””” to mention the most glaring error in their “”””analysis””””. That is”” because the earth has ALREADY been warming >1deg since 1940 why hasn’t GDP then been negatively affected according to the model? For some unexplained reason for all temperatures greater than from today (literally as of tomorrow)”” global GDP will slow down over time! That is what their “”””1 degree increase”””” model says. In other words”””” manure statistics.”””
Correct, this is basic bs statistics and economic forecasting. These guys use a recursive model – i.e., predicting future scenarios based on current conditions. Absolutely trash. They even admit it in their limitations section. It’s like being in 1918 and using the Model-T, no semi-conductors and no nuclear energy etc to predict the economy in 2018 based on yet another recursive model called the weather……It’s not even science. It’s purely make believe.
Trying to predict economic growth that far ahead is just silly; there are all sorts of possible technological changes that would have massive impact on the figures. For example, one of the numerous fusion projects could end up being cheap enough to replace existing/future planned fossil fuel plants without any sacrifice of quality of life for anyone. Or one or more countries may try one of the many geoengineering proposals to fix the warming problem; some of them should be able to stop any plausible warming effect, and are cheap enough that countries like Brazil, Indonesia, or Nigeria could implement them unilaterally. And of course, if anyone gets a strong AI working, all other predictions go out the window.
Correct this is basic bs statistics and economic forecasting. These guys use a recursive model – i.e. predicting future scenarios based on current conditions. Absolutely trash. They even admit it in their limitations section. It’s like being in 1918 and using the Model-T no semi-conductors and no nuclear energy etc to predict the economy in 2018 based on yet another recursive model called the weather……It’s not even science. It’s purely make believe.
Trying to predict economic growth that far ahead is just silly; there are all sorts of possible technological changes that would have massive impact on the figures. For example one of the numerous fusion projects could end up being cheap enough to replace existing/future planned fossil fuel plants without any sacrifice of quality of life for anyone. Or one or more countries may try one of the many geoengineering proposals to fix the warming problem; some of them should be able to stop any plausible warming effect and are cheap enough that countries like Brazil Indonesia or Nigeria could implement them unilaterally. And of course if anyone gets a strong AI working all other predictions go out the window.
Correct, this is basic bs statistics and economic forecasting. These guys use a recursive model – i.e., predicting future scenarios based on current conditions. Absolutely trash. They even admit it in their limitations section. It’s like being in 1918 and using the Model-T, no semi-conductors and no nuclear energy etc to predict the economy in 2018 based on yet another recursive model called the weather……It’s not even science. It’s purely make believe.
Trying to predict economic growth that far ahead is just silly; there are all sorts of possible technological changes that would have massive impact on the figures. For example, one of the numerous fusion projects could end up being cheap enough to replace existing/future planned fossil fuel plants without any sacrifice of quality of life for anyone. Or one or more countries may try one of the many geoengineering proposals to fix the warming problem; some of them should be able to stop any plausible warming effect, and are cheap enough that countries like Brazil, Indonesia, or Nigeria could implement them unilaterally. And of course, if anyone gets a strong AI working, all other predictions go out the window.
The only major country who has reduced Co2 emissions per capita is the U.S. which is now back at late 1950’s/early 1960s levels despite an economy 25x bigger. Oh, and they aren’t part of the Paris agreement.
As for this paper from Australia, it is caveated with significant amounts of “random unknowns” that could impact GDP. They have essentially added up everyone else’s country level studies and plugged in the rest of the missing country data. Furthermore, they “forgot” to mention the most glaring error in their “analysis”. That is, because the earth has ALREADY been warming >1deg since 1940, why hasn’t GDP then been negatively affected according to the model? For some unexplained reason, for all temperatures greater than from today (literally as of tomorrow), global GDP will slow down over time! That is what their “1 degree increase” model says. In other words, manure statistics.
Well by 1936 a lot of people figured that WW2 was coming. Especially those people in places like China where it had already started.
But mostly they thought it would be like WW1, lots of trench warfare and fairly static. Even the English and French military were making plans based on this assumption.
But your overall point remains. NOBODY in 1936 was predicting that the headline concerns of today would be a big deal. Half of the issues would not even make sense to them.
Or start building a dyson sphere in 350 years; either way it works 😉
I don’t think the economic costs of pollution so far are comparable to the submersion of coastlines and costs of weather extremes to both people and agriculture. I think its pretty obvious that trying to fix this after it happens is either going to be impossible or incomparably more expensive than prevention.
Assuming the universe is dead i would mostly agree. If its not we will be a cancer soon. Our growth rate resembles a explosive cancer on a geological scale it is simply unsustainable. Post singulairty life indeed is difficult to predict but not impossible. We need to double power ever 27 years? Seems like a tall order. The biodome is doomed we should ark what we can asap.
Yes PV will probably bypass hydro soon, making it more like an battery.
However making predictions for year 2100 is just as stupid as making them for today in 1936.
All you predictions will be wrong,
Both nuclear power and PV was unknown in 1936, together with stuff like the transistor and penicillin and obviously WW2 🙂
Geez lol did i say a bad word.
From a thermodynamics standpoint these economic growth levels are impossible without moving the heat to space.
This, its limits to growth, as in how much you can use. We are there with food and drink, you can always increase quality but that fast become status.
Power also has limits. Power use in Europe is pretty stable, yes this is in part idiot politic and in part exporting industry to China, but still it would be limits.
Even if you go nuts and want Stockholm to be tropical or similar you are hard limit because of global warming, no not co2 but simply as your added energy simply heat earth.
Solution is to go into space but again how much can you use?
Population will start to age and drop unless radical life extension anyway.
Direct extrapolation almost always results in silly predictions after certain point.
Besides, what’s the problem of being a “plague” in the universe? I’d call seeding life into the universe and a net improvement over an empty dead cosmos!
“we need to start considering zero growth economic models or become a plauge [sic] on the universe.”
And there it is.
Looks like solar PV is on track to pass hydro in say two decades.
/sarc
“China did not have to pollute to grow.”
Huh? I’m old enough to remember when three gorges was going to provide 20% of China’s electricity… only to find that need far outstripped the ability of mega projects to provide.
27 year doubling would lead to us needing a dyson sphere in as little as 400 years…….we need to start considering zero growth economic models or become a plauge on the universe.
Going forward the cost of Climate Change will not be 7% of the economy. It will grow exponentially until it is more than 100% of the economy. Yes, it will start destroying value faster than the economy can grow.
China did not have to pollute to grow. No one has to. The minute you start polluting there is an immediate cost and a long term cost. That cost far out weights the expense to not pollute. The problem is that society as a whole pays the cost of pollution while corporations reaps the profit of polluting.