Climate Change is a Problem But Not the End of the World

Cost-benefit climate change analyst Bjorn Lomborg has the following analysis of the costs.

Bjorn is taking the UN panel report as being mostly credible and accurate.

Bjorn does believe that sea levels would rise but that this is not a big overall cost.

Hurricanes will go from 0.04% of world GDP damage to 0.02% of world GDP by 2100. However, it would have declined to 0.01% of world GDP if there was no global warming.

There will be 2-4% of economic impact in 2100, but this is from a projected increase of 1000-3000% in world GDP. This would mean that the GDP of 2100 would be the GDP of 2099. We would lose one year of growth.

The Doha round of world trade agreements would have made everyone in the world on average $1000 per year richer in 2030. It would have raised 146 million people out of poverty.

In 2017, there was $148 billion spent on UN world development goals. $29 billion as spent on climate change. Climate change spending was not the best way to improve the world.

In the USA, air pollution is still killing 200,000 people per year. 95% of the economic benefits of the EPA come from reducing air pollution. Air pollution causes the premature death of over 7 million people per year in the world.

Bjorn proposes different priorities for improving the world.

Bjorn lists the costs and benefits of the smartest solutions to twelve global problems. If $75 billion were spent over four years.

The highest ranked solution – meaning that it yields the most benefit for the least cost – is to spend $3 billion over four years, on a bundle of micronutrients and medicines to reduce under-nutrition and improve education in preschool-aged children.
For about $100 per child, this bundle could reduce chronic under-nutrition by 36 percent in developing countries. More than 100 million children could start their lives without stunted growth or malnourishment.

Because these children will lead healthier, more productive lives as adults – a virtuous cycle of dramatic development – each dollar spent addressing chronic under-nutrition has a $30 payoff in economic terms. Ultimately, when all the benefits are translated into economic terms, every dollar spent on malnutrition will likely do $63 worth of global good.

Other top-ranked solutions include expanding malaria treatment (generating $35 in benefits for every dollar spent), immunization for children, and deworming.

SOURCES- Bjorn Lomborg, Youtube

Written By Brian Wang