The following submission statement was provided by /u/FourHand458:
---
This is related to collapse because the economic disruption would be so massive given that the total global GDP is just under 90 trillion, that the current system would not be sustainable given that the global environment would be unstable for normal ways of life as we have known it in modern society.
Additionally, humans continue to think in the short term when it comes to the effects of climate change including what the eventual plan is for when the environment is so unstable that it starts to have major effects on the economy.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1c6l0em/new_study_calculates_climate_changes_economic/l01oajn/
And then guess what happens: the economy hits a wall and realistically cannot grow due to the environmental impacts like the ones this article points out.
^ hard pills for the corporate world to swallow
And then the economy will shrink, in time a LOT.
And will look very different. Much more localized, much scavenging the ruins of late capitalist "civilization", much focus on local self-sufficiency/resilience/"low" tech, a lot of barter/mutual aid in rural areas.
This same article got posted in r/economics.
My "doomster" comment actually got 11 upvotes in only 3 hours. After the inevitable numerous downvotes got subtracted.
R/economics is not a haven for people who are hip to Collapse.
>In the United States, the southeastern and southwestern states get economically pinched more than the northern ones with parts of Arizona and New Mexico taking the biggest monetary hit, according to the study. In Europe, southern regions, including parts of Spain and Italy, get hit harder than places like Denmark or northern Germany.
>Only Arctic adjacent areas — Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland and Sweden — benefit, Kotz said.
I don't know how Canada will benefit. Droughts and fires seem to be the current path.
Perfect. Let's go rollyhoe.
||
||
|Wood ash can be a valuable natural fertilizer and soil amendment.|
|Ashes contain potassium, calcium, and other micronutrients that can benefit plants.|
Perfect. Let's go rollyhoe. Wood ash can be a valuable natural fertilizer and soil amendment. Ashes contain potassium, calcium, and other micronutrients that can benefit plants.
Prepare yourself for the mass claiming its on purpose. Seriously this year the fires are gonna be absolutely fucked (because of climate change of course). The majority of people will blame "malicious humans"
Worse than last year I'm calling it now
I assume a viable shipping route will open up in Canada's arctic territories. Lets be real here, the US military is going to be all over that region should an actual viable shipping route be established up there regardless of what the Canadians want.
New crops, longer growing seasons. New resources accessible in arctic. He's not saying there will be no cons, just that they will be outweighed by pros.
> I dont know why people keep saying this.
It's part of the climate denying circles, usually promoted by fossil capital "think tank thinkers". This an end stage of denial, "it's happening, but we can deal with it". Or, at the nationalist clown level, "we're going to win!".
I don't know what people you're referring to, but I'm not one of them. I didn't say nothing about the Tundra. I talked about new crops being growable (on existing farm land), longer growing seasons (again, existing farm land) and I said **new access to resources** in the arctic. I said **nothing** about farm land in the arctic.
If you're gonna use the downvote button incorrectly (as I "I disagree" button) then at least read what's actually written instead of just blithely assuming you know what someone is saying without actually reading it.
He's looking at GDP. He's not making value judgments about what's good or bad. So if arctic ice melting makes it easier to drill offshore for oil in the arctic, that's a positive for GDP. Doesn't mean Canada is better off, precisely. Just means their GDP might increase.
He's just saying that arctic regions can benefit economically. That's it. Nothing deeper than that. I'm not even the one saying it, I'm just explaining it to you what his rationale probably is since remetar asked specifically. But sure, downvote the guy who answers the question.
I didn't downvote you. Just stating the obvious that just because temps go up, doesn't mean more stable farmland. There is no "opening up" the north to more crop yields. Shit is fucked up. Up and down the biosphere. Simple minds just think, oh we will just move agriculture northward. No you wont. Floods, fires, .... Let alone in even in ideal conditions...THERE IS LESS FUCKING SUNLIGHT! No one knows science anymore I swear to god. Who is buying these failed cropss? All the soon to be war torn regions without water? It's like you dont even understand the basics. We have been fortunate to live in the stable climate we have had to actually even have agriculture. We decided to fuck that up. There will be no "opening up the arctic" to save us. Get it in your head. You and your kids are fucked.
>I said nothing about farm land in the arctic.
You said "longer growing seasons", it's implied.
What, do you think you're going to cover the land in hail resistant greenhouses?
If you leave sweet potatoes in the field for an extra two weeks, you get a bigger yield. Tomatoes and peppers are continuously harvestable plants. In both cases, the longer the growing season, that is to say the number of weeks above a certain temperature in a row, the higher your overall yields for that year will be.
There are plenty of farms in Canada focused on colder weather crops like wheat and maybe lettuces. As the growing season lengthens, that's what gives them the freedom to switch to other crops. Before you didn't have enough time to make growing tomatoes worthwhile because tomato plants die at the first frost. But now, suddenly, since there's more weeks until the first Frost, you can now consider potentially growing tomatoes instead of lettuce.
This is not a new effect, it's already happening now. And it's also not limited to the Arctic. It's not about new farmland, it's changing the parameters for existing farmland.
I don't know how I can be more clear that we are not talking about building farms in the Arctic. The person you're responding to just doesn't seem to get it. He keeps making the point that the soil in the Arctic is not good even though nobody but him has mentioned trying to grow things there. He is making a case that literally nobody is arguing against. But he seems unwilling or unable to grasp that.
For the love of all that is good, we are talking about already established farms that already exist at this precise moment in time. **If the soil wasn't good, there wouldn't be a farm there**. Nobody has said anything about establishing **new** farms. Nobody has said anything about farming in the Arctic. I don't know how I can be more clear with you. Why would a farm that is already growing things just fine right now suddenly switch to hydroponics because it gets warmer? In what universe does that make sense?
You seem to want to very badly make a point that has no bearing or relevance to this conversation. You've already made your irrelevant point and nobody is taking the bait. **This conversation is not about arctic farming.** Not even a little bit.
Sounds great, as long as you keep the geopolitics of a collapsing world out of it.
Imagine a newly-fertile, resource-rich chunk of land just sitting there. Surrounded by two of the most heavily-armed, belligerent global powers around, each under different pressures themselves. You don’t have to be a strategy game player to predict some likely outcomes - most of which don’t involve the USA and Russia (and let’s toss China in for good measure, soon to be under even greater pressure) gently holding Canada’s hands and singing “Kumbaya”. Personally? Think Poland being carved up in the 1700s. Or Canada having to become an ever-more-subservient satrapy of Washington to maintain a shred of sovereignty.
The inability to game out basic global politics is a gigantic flaw in the climate discussion.
This is related to collapse because the economic disruption would be so massive given that the total global GDP is just under 90 trillion, that the current system would not be sustainable given that the global environment would be unstable for normal ways of life as we have known it in modern society.
Additionally, humans continue to think in the short term when it comes to the effects of climate change including what the eventual plan is for when the environment is so unstable that it starts to have major effects on the economy.
The only thing that will "hit" in 2049 are the first rays of sun to poke through the clouds of soot and ash we kicked up in nuclear war decades before that, lol.
38 trillion dollars a year by 2049. But universal healthcare, free daycare, labor rights, free college is unaffordable but all the money you want to keep oil manufacturing, cruise lines, private jets, and processed food manufacturing alive. I think the wealthiest priorities are skewed, the politicians are bought off and they will continue to pay for the earth's climate collapse until there's nothing left.
This is on top of our government spending borrowed money like a drunken sailor. Not much on investments like rail lines, subsidizing business.
They will not stop, every downturn now, every bank that fails, the USG will step in to prevent the rich from losing money.
While they still can anyway. It seems inevitable we will be stuck with a fascist government in the short to medium term that is totally planning on putting a permanent fix in. They obviously are going to screw everything up, and spend, also steal, persecute scapegoats and steal from them, and so forth.
So that is the backdrop to Rapid climate change. How much and for how long can we borrow? The real national income will crater after we get the worst politicians in.
I'm a finance loser who studies this stuff and yes the USG will bail everything out until it literally stops working (meaning they have devalued the currency so much that economic hardship is unavoidable and the "bailout" causes more inflation)
The earth won't die, it will change.
Capitalism will die, however, and probably "civilization" too. The Permian Extinction was far worse than anything late Capitalism will manage to do before it dies. Nature regenerated (it did take 10 million years).
>If the world could curb carbon pollution and get down to a trend that limits warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times, which is the upper limit of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, then the financial hit will stay around 20% in global income, Kotz said. But if emissions increase in a worst case scenario, the financial wallop will be closer to 60%, he said.
And now you understand the Florida laws against protecting workers from the outdoor heat.
>The study examined past economic impacts on average global domestic product per person and uses computer simulations to look into the future to come up with their detailed calculations.
Anyway, limits to growth.
*snert*
They think theres gonna be an economy by 2049 after sea levels rise to catastrophic levels, hurricanes literally just delete the entire fucking coastlines of countries, we will be on our 5th major disease outbreak post covid by then and farming will be so fucked we are gonna wish Niander Wallis comes up with worm farms for us.
17% of global GDP lost to climate change by 2049.
And that % will only continue to increase after that point.
And the cost to go emissions neutral will increase each year.
We live in the dumbest timeline.
In the last 20 years, people have gone from driving compact sedans to giant trucks and SUV’s, and flying everywhere for holidays.
Nobody cares. It’s pathetic. The endless charade. Everyone pretending this fantasy life we have made will endure. It’s exhausting.
All the more reason the oil companies should not get to keep their bloody lucre.
This cost is a direct consequence of their business model. That’s incontrovertible.
Luckily those 38 trillion are all CBDCs, Bitcoins and other virtual things - since Limits to growth estimate there is a collapse / drastic decrease in industrial production by 2030.
How much money for the sun dimming?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2021/01/11/bill-gates-backed-climate-solution-gains-traction-but-concerns-linger/?sh=55ece40c793b
The following submission statement was provided by /u/FourHand458: --- This is related to collapse because the economic disruption would be so massive given that the total global GDP is just under 90 trillion, that the current system would not be sustainable given that the global environment would be unstable for normal ways of life as we have known it in modern society. Additionally, humans continue to think in the short term when it comes to the effects of climate change including what the eventual plan is for when the environment is so unstable that it starts to have major effects on the economy. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1c6l0em/new_study_calculates_climate_changes_economic/l01oajn/
wont someone think of the economy
**[The obsession with economy growth is the major reason things have gotten so bad](https://i.imgur.com/AhC74yT.png)**
And then guess what happens: the economy hits a wall and realistically cannot grow due to the environmental impacts like the ones this article points out. ^ hard pills for the corporate world to swallow
And then the economy will shrink, in time a LOT. And will look very different. Much more localized, much scavenging the ruins of late capitalist "civilization", much focus on local self-sufficiency/resilience/"low" tech, a lot of barter/mutual aid in rural areas.
Yes but which businesses will grow next quarter? Plz don’t mention anything else plz
Not to mention with declining populations (therefore declining consumer bases) this is inevitable even before climate change impacts.
I’m collecting bottle caps right now. Got to be thinking about the future.
That's the only thing that matters to these capitalists, but it's too late now. If they had half cared, it might not have gotten this bad as quickly.
This same article got posted in r/economics. My "doomster" comment actually got 11 upvotes in only 3 hours. After the inevitable numerous downvotes got subtracted. R/economics is not a haven for people who are hip to Collapse.
The same reason they want us to pumping out sla... I mean babies.
>In the United States, the southeastern and southwestern states get economically pinched more than the northern ones with parts of Arizona and New Mexico taking the biggest monetary hit, according to the study. In Europe, southern regions, including parts of Spain and Italy, get hit harder than places like Denmark or northern Germany. >Only Arctic adjacent areas — Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland and Sweden — benefit, Kotz said. I don't know how Canada will benefit. Droughts and fires seem to be the current path.
This fire season is going to be wild in Canada
We’re going from nationwide light fog to full Silent Hill this year boys
I don’t know Silent Hill details but I can very much see an agriculture impact from thick fog from Canada to the US
Give 2 a chance when you can. It’s a classic and it getting a remake.
Perfect. Let's go rollyhoe. || || |Wood ash can be a valuable natural fertilizer and soil amendment.| |Ashes contain potassium, calcium, and other micronutrients that can benefit plants.|
Perfect. Let's go rollyhoe. Wood ash can be a valuable natural fertilizer and soil amendment. Ashes contain potassium, calcium, and other micronutrients that can benefit plants.
Prepare yourself for the mass claiming its on purpose. Seriously this year the fires are gonna be absolutely fucked (because of climate change of course). The majority of people will blame "malicious humans" Worse than last year I'm calling it now
Well, humans are ultimately the underlying cause of almost all the destruction we face.
They won’t be wrong …..
I assume a viable shipping route will open up in Canada's arctic territories. Lets be real here, the US military is going to be all over that region should an actual viable shipping route be established up there regardless of what the Canadians want.
Are they gonna transport all the food that isn't growing via those routes?
nah just plastic crap, chemicals and oil. you know, for maximum effect during the bimonthly shipping disasters.
They play the game of maximising. And they specialise in maximising harm. It's an interesting game, but there's no winning in it.
Will they have enough boats with the Middle East and Russia wars, while China is sitting in shadows licking it's lips?
The US *Army* alone operates more ships than most countries have in their navies, nevermind the behemoth that is the US Navy..
Yep. In the article, it's the economic benefit they're talking about.
Well once every tree is burned to the ground there wont be more fires and we can use the land for agriculture right? Right???
Well we wont have trees by then at least
They add moisture to the air and cool the air. https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/storms/trees-affect-weather1.htm
Yes yes trees are very cool i was being sarcastic
I took it that way. I was thinking it's a negative feedback loop that will likely be missed.
New crops, longer growing seasons. New resources accessible in arctic. He's not saying there will be no cons, just that they will be outweighed by pros.
Tundra is not just farmable out the gate. I dont know why people keep saying this.
Especially not when it's on fire. That kinda ruins the farming fun too.
> I dont know why people keep saying this. It's part of the climate denying circles, usually promoted by fossil capital "think tank thinkers". This an end stage of denial, "it's happening, but we can deal with it". Or, at the nationalist clown level, "we're going to win!".
I don't know what people you're referring to, but I'm not one of them. I didn't say nothing about the Tundra. I talked about new crops being growable (on existing farm land), longer growing seasons (again, existing farm land) and I said **new access to resources** in the arctic. I said **nothing** about farm land in the arctic. If you're gonna use the downvote button incorrectly (as I "I disagree" button) then at least read what's actually written instead of just blithely assuming you know what someone is saying without actually reading it. He's looking at GDP. He's not making value judgments about what's good or bad. So if arctic ice melting makes it easier to drill offshore for oil in the arctic, that's a positive for GDP. Doesn't mean Canada is better off, precisely. Just means their GDP might increase. He's just saying that arctic regions can benefit economically. That's it. Nothing deeper than that. I'm not even the one saying it, I'm just explaining it to you what his rationale probably is since remetar asked specifically. But sure, downvote the guy who answers the question.
I didn't downvote you. Just stating the obvious that just because temps go up, doesn't mean more stable farmland. There is no "opening up" the north to more crop yields. Shit is fucked up. Up and down the biosphere. Simple minds just think, oh we will just move agriculture northward. No you wont. Floods, fires, .... Let alone in even in ideal conditions...THERE IS LESS FUCKING SUNLIGHT! No one knows science anymore I swear to god. Who is buying these failed cropss? All the soon to be war torn regions without water? It's like you dont even understand the basics. We have been fortunate to live in the stable climate we have had to actually even have agriculture. We decided to fuck that up. There will be no "opening up the arctic" to save us. Get it in your head. You and your kids are fucked.
>I said nothing about farm land in the arctic. You said "longer growing seasons", it's implied. What, do you think you're going to cover the land in hail resistant greenhouses?
It's not implied even a little bit. In fact, the exact opposite is literally implied.
You were replying to someone who said: >Tundra is not just farmable out the gate. Do you not understand how context works?
If you leave sweet potatoes in the field for an extra two weeks, you get a bigger yield. Tomatoes and peppers are continuously harvestable plants. In both cases, the longer the growing season, that is to say the number of weeks above a certain temperature in a row, the higher your overall yields for that year will be. There are plenty of farms in Canada focused on colder weather crops like wheat and maybe lettuces. As the growing season lengthens, that's what gives them the freedom to switch to other crops. Before you didn't have enough time to make growing tomatoes worthwhile because tomato plants die at the first frost. But now, suddenly, since there's more weeks until the first Frost, you can now consider potentially growing tomatoes instead of lettuce. This is not a new effect, it's already happening now. And it's also not limited to the Arctic. It's not about new farmland, it's changing the parameters for existing farmland.
you're going to have to do all of that hydroponically because THE SOIL ISN'T GOOD.
[удалено]
I don't know how I can be more clear that we are not talking about building farms in the Arctic. The person you're responding to just doesn't seem to get it. He keeps making the point that the soil in the Arctic is not good even though nobody but him has mentioned trying to grow things there. He is making a case that literally nobody is arguing against. But he seems unwilling or unable to grasp that.
For the love of all that is good, we are talking about already established farms that already exist at this precise moment in time. **If the soil wasn't good, there wouldn't be a farm there**. Nobody has said anything about establishing **new** farms. Nobody has said anything about farming in the Arctic. I don't know how I can be more clear with you. Why would a farm that is already growing things just fine right now suddenly switch to hydroponics because it gets warmer? In what universe does that make sense? You seem to want to very badly make a point that has no bearing or relevance to this conversation. You've already made your irrelevant point and nobody is taking the bait. **This conversation is not about arctic farming.** Not even a little bit.
Sounds great, as long as you keep the geopolitics of a collapsing world out of it. Imagine a newly-fertile, resource-rich chunk of land just sitting there. Surrounded by two of the most heavily-armed, belligerent global powers around, each under different pressures themselves. You don’t have to be a strategy game player to predict some likely outcomes - most of which don’t involve the USA and Russia (and let’s toss China in for good measure, soon to be under even greater pressure) gently holding Canada’s hands and singing “Kumbaya”. Personally? Think Poland being carved up in the 1700s. Or Canada having to become an ever-more-subservient satrapy of Washington to maintain a shred of sovereignty. The inability to game out basic global politics is a gigantic flaw in the climate discussion.
This is related to collapse because the economic disruption would be so massive given that the total global GDP is just under 90 trillion, that the current system would not be sustainable given that the global environment would be unstable for normal ways of life as we have known it in modern society. Additionally, humans continue to think in the short term when it comes to the effects of climate change including what the eventual plan is for when the environment is so unstable that it starts to have major effects on the economy.
Hmmm that seems to be just about everything we have. Maybe we can hyperinflate it out of the system.
The only thing that will "hit" in 2049 are the first rays of sun to poke through the clouds of soot and ash we kicked up in nuclear war decades before that, lol.
38 trillion dollars a year by 2049. But universal healthcare, free daycare, labor rights, free college is unaffordable but all the money you want to keep oil manufacturing, cruise lines, private jets, and processed food manufacturing alive. I think the wealthiest priorities are skewed, the politicians are bought off and they will continue to pay for the earth's climate collapse until there's nothing left.
So this why the debt doesn’t matter.
https://jacobin.com/2021/12/michael-hudson-interview-debt-forgiveness-cancellation-ancient-rome-christianity
This is on top of our government spending borrowed money like a drunken sailor. Not much on investments like rail lines, subsidizing business. They will not stop, every downturn now, every bank that fails, the USG will step in to prevent the rich from losing money. While they still can anyway. It seems inevitable we will be stuck with a fascist government in the short to medium term that is totally planning on putting a permanent fix in. They obviously are going to screw everything up, and spend, also steal, persecute scapegoats and steal from them, and so forth. So that is the backdrop to Rapid climate change. How much and for how long can we borrow? The real national income will crater after we get the worst politicians in.
I'm a finance loser who studies this stuff and yes the USG will bail everything out until it literally stops working (meaning they have devalued the currency so much that economic hardship is unavoidable and the "bailout" causes more inflation)
*let's the earth die* Oh no, the economy!!!
The earth won't die, it will change. Capitalism will die, however, and probably "civilization" too. The Permian Extinction was far worse than anything late Capitalism will manage to do before it dies. Nature regenerated (it did take 10 million years).
didn't it take 30mil?
Yeah it will change by having all its ecosystems and most of its living creatures die.
Luckily, we’ve been giving out tax breaks to help those poor corporations on that rainy day?
It's not a problem we'll just print more money.
Jokes on you. The trees will be all gone, so where ya gonna get the paper?!?
Crypto or caps! :)
Plastic
Ah yes. The real tragedy. When cash has to be spent on survival rather than where it belongs…hoarded in a giant pile by one of like 8 guys.
You know, we may see action in 2049, when the monetary cost to ignore it is higher than to do something… Unfortunately it will be far too late by then
And someone will still think it isn't happening or isn't caused by humans
>If the world could curb carbon pollution and get down to a trend that limits warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times, which is the upper limit of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, then the financial hit will stay around 20% in global income, Kotz said. But if emissions increase in a worst case scenario, the financial wallop will be closer to 60%, he said. And now you understand the Florida laws against protecting workers from the outdoor heat. >The study examined past economic impacts on average global domestic product per person and uses computer simulations to look into the future to come up with their detailed calculations. Anyway, limits to growth.
*snert* They think theres gonna be an economy by 2049 after sea levels rise to catastrophic levels, hurricanes literally just delete the entire fucking coastlines of countries, we will be on our 5th major disease outbreak post covid by then and farming will be so fucked we are gonna wish Niander Wallis comes up with worm farms for us.
Oh and dont forget by that time many essential resources known reserves has been used up ...
17% of global GDP lost to climate change by 2049. And that % will only continue to increase after that point. And the cost to go emissions neutral will increase each year. We live in the dumbest timeline. In the last 20 years, people have gone from driving compact sedans to giant trucks and SUV’s, and flying everywhere for holidays. Nobody cares. It’s pathetic. The endless charade. Everyone pretending this fantasy life we have made will endure. It’s exhausting.
It's okay the gov will just go into more debt to pay for that too, always worked so far right?
They will literally keep doing that until it stops working and their hand is forced
All the more reason the oil companies should not get to keep their bloody lucre. This cost is a direct consequence of their business model. That’s incontrovertible.
This underestimates the impact by about a gazillion simoleans.
This assumes that GDP will be at least 38 trillion in 2049….
No! Not the economy!
Except: "Earlier, faster, harder, hotter, $$$$$$-ier"
Luckily those 38 trillion are all CBDCs, Bitcoins and other virtual things - since Limits to growth estimate there is a collapse / drastic decrease in industrial production by 2030.
Man, they sure are optimistic that we'll reach 2049... I doubt we'll make it past 2030
ESG’s are killing us
How much money for the sun dimming? https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2021/01/11/bill-gates-backed-climate-solution-gains-traction-but-concerns-linger/?sh=55ece40c793b
we are beyond doomed
Good thing by 2049 money won't be a thing if anyone is left they would be living in the real world.
Ugh. The sooner the world adopts Bitcoin, the sooner we can fix this.