Ag Weather Forum

$44 Trillion For Climate Change Cost

Bryce Anderson
By  Bryce Anderson , DTN Senior Ag Meteorologist
Connect with Bryce:

A portion of a recent Washington Insider posting is worth repeating just to be sure it gets some attention--and that is an item discussing one consulting firm's estimate of the tab for climate change. Here it is--Bryce

Twitter @BAndersonDTN

New Climate Change Study Quantifies Effect on Global Economy

The latest in a long line of climate change studies could merit extra attention from policy makers due to the horrific economic devastation it forecasts. According to a report by the U.K-based risk analysis firm Maplecroft, nearly one-third of global economic output will be based in countries facing "high" to "extreme" risks from the consequences from climate change by 2025.

The effects from more frequent and extreme climate-related events such as storms, flooding or drought will threaten a projected $44 trillion in economic output from 67 countries, says the report. That figure represents a 50 percent increase in the share of global gross domestic product at high or extreme risk, compared to the current level of $15 trillion, according to the report. (BA note--the $44 trillion figure is just over 2 1/2 times the size of the U.S. $16.7 trillion deficit.)

The report was based on the latest edition of Maplecroft's Climate Change Vulnerability Index, which weighs countries' exposure and sensitivity to extreme climate-related events against their adaptive capacity. This latest climate change report will provide additional ammunition for those who argue for actions that would mitigate higher global temperatures. It is unlikely to sway the cadre of those who believe that climate change is not taking place or, if it is, that there is nothing anyone can do about it. Still, $44 trillion is a big number.



To comment, please Log In or Join our Community .

Paul Beiser
11/19/2013 | 8:56 AM CST
Jay... man has an effect on tillage practices. That's a far cry from saying farming practices in tge dustbowl caused the lack of rain... please reread your college text book from logic 101. I could submit a premise that with no humans on earth... all living creatures would become extinct. How could you prove my premise wrong? That's the exact type of argument that the global warmists' put out. Its impossible to prove. Yes... the universe is much larger than mankind and we are here to take care of the planet. Just because some humans disagree with others on how to live each day does not mean one is right and the other is wrong. Everyone has their own reality.
Jim R Lerwick
11/15/2013 | 9:38 PM CST
Man generally thinks more of himself than he should and almost always overestimates his actual ability. Usually there is another man there to reap economically from his miscalculation.
Jay Mcginnis
11/15/2013 | 7:06 AM CST
So humans have no impact on climate??? Climate is bigger then man??? 2 words, DUST BOWL. Humans can impact climate very well and it doesn't have a pretty outcome.
Brandon Butler
11/13/2013 | 12:22 PM CST
Hint: If you build things where tornadoes occur (yes, they occurred before George Bush became president), sometimes those things are going to blow away. If you build things where there is sometimes flooding, they will be underwater. If you plant things where sometimes there is a drought, then you are at risk for them not growing. If you build things where hurricanes and or typhoons occur, sometimes horrific things will happen. These obvious (and sarcastic) statements are neither in support of or against economic progress, they are just statements. I leave the question as to whether the human race should continue to propagate to the elitists.
Paul Beiser
11/11/2013 | 8:16 AM CST
Obviously you don't get sarcasm Jay... I know one thing is certain. The federal government will NEVER fix global warming cause the climate is much larger than mankind. If it makes you feel good... just go along with the scam and don't be surprised when the government puts the squeeze on you when they define you as a wealthy land owner that hasn't done enough for the greater good.
Jay Mcginnis
11/11/2013 | 5:37 AM CST
So are we suppose to sell all we have and climb trees for the rapture in 2025? This time you are sure you got it right?
Paul Beiser
11/9/2013 | 9:06 AM CST
Yup. Its too late. Hell fire cometh in 2025. Q: isn't every bit of GDP at risk every single day? I'm just gonna go ahead and schedule an inch of rain every thursday night and a quick shower every other sunday morning. .... just for good measure. How's that? I just solved the dought issue. BRANDON.... can you fix the wind speed?
Jay Mcginnis
11/7/2013 | 6:17 AM CST
Did you figure in last years increase in production from the drought Clay??? Science will prevail in this I am certain, just as it did in the "Scopes trial" but it may be too late.
H. Clay Daulton
11/6/2013 | 10:09 PM CST
The article fails to recognize that parts of the Earth may become -- or are becoming -- more productive due to greater availability of CO2 and the commensurate slightly higher temperatures. Constant climate change, and sometimes rapid and dramatic climate change are both an integral part of Earth's history.
Brandon Butler
11/6/2013 | 3:56 PM CST
I certainly long for the days in the history of the earth when it was all blue skies and green grass.