John Carlos Baez

Sometimes business as usual just isn't an option. Sometimes you quickly put out the fire or the house burns down.

Ukraine's GDP dropped 30% when Russia invaded. Unless we take immediate action the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries expects a 50% decline of worldwide GDP by about 2070-2090, due to global warming. (Compared to if there were no global warming.)

And this, they drily point out, will be "exceptionally challenging" for investors.

They write:

"The pace of warming is also uncertain. However, some scientists now estimate warming of 0.3˚C per decade or around 1˚C every 30 years, which would imply warming of greater than 2˚C by 2050 and 3˚C by 2080. This is well within life expectancy for many in workplace schemes now and in range for the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) who have specified 80 years as long range for the Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA)."

"Put another way, at what point do we expect 50% GDP destruction? – somewhere between 2070 and 2090 depending on how you parameterise the distribution. It is worth a moment of reflection to consider what sort of catastrophic chain of events would lead to this level of economic destruction."

"This analysis provides a compelling logic for net zero becoming part of fiduciary duty, as if we do not mitigate climate change, it will be exceptionally challenging to provide financial returns."

Read the whole report for the reasoning behind this:

• The Emperor’s New Climate Scenarios: limitations and assumptions of commonly used
climate-change scenarios in financial services, https://actuaries.org.uk/media/qeydewmk/the-emperor-s-new-climate-scenarios_ifoa_23.pdf

Sep 19, 2023 at 1:10pmWeb
Show threadBartosz MilewskiSep 19, 2023
@johncarlosbaez This reminds me of the movie "The big short". Other cinematic references that come to mind: "Don't look up" and, of course, "Idiocracy".
Show threadMarkSep 19, 2023

@BartoszMilewski @johncarlosbaez The best review comment I read about "Don't Look Up" was from (IIRC) https://mastodon.social/@Pwnallthethings that went (paraphrased)

"30 minutes into the movie I'm rooting for the comet."

Unfortunately I'm starting to feel the same way about global warming.

Show threadpenguin42Sep 19, 2023
@johncarlosbaez Well before 2050 we should have Tidal and probably Fusion cooking well, and the ammonia/hydrogen stuff is coming on well within the next few years; so we should be able to slow it down - right?
Show threadJohn Carlos BaezSep 19, 2023

@penguin42 - you're very optimistic if you think tidal or fusion will scale up to contribute a lot of power by 2050. For example, a fusion experiment last year that claimed to have achieved 'net energy gain' actually lost 99% of the energy that was put in:

https://whyy.org/segments/why-the-nuclear-fusion-net-energy-gain-is-more-hype-than-breakthrough/

Tidal actually works, so the question is how much and how fast can we scale it up. Solar and wind power are increasing extremely fast, repeatedly taking experts by surprise.

Why the nuclear fusion ‘net energy gain’ is more hype than breakthrough

The Department of Energy announced last week that scientists have finally achieved the "net energy gain." What does this “breakthrough” actually mean, and why some are calling it a ‘scam.’

WHYY
Show threadpenguin42Sep 19, 2023
@johncarlosbaez Solar and Wind are doing nicely; but are fickle. Unless we come up with massive energy storage, wind isn't going to be enough. Tidal is starting to get there - but yes is way behind. LLNL fusion ignition is hype - but that's not the only game; laser guys are saying that they were using decades old lasers and modern lasers are orders of magnitude better (see Marvel fusion), tokamak fusion is getting there (see CFS and Tokamak energy), then there are wackier things like Helion.
Show threadDavid CSep 19, 2023

@johncarlosbaez any sense for how that 50% gdp destruction relates to this note, which cities projections that gdp (and other relevant measures) will continue improving?

(Is that 50% destruction relative to today, or relative to where we would be without climate change? If the latter then maybe that resolves the tension)

Show threadDavid CSep 19, 2023
@johncarlosbaez https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01784-4.epdf?sharing_token=ZMDexWA5sFrKRq4Hrdq2x9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M0hJ9ZWNv8-VVYfbyWsaf0xiQyyBXCyqFv3ER61Z_dQ4UR38WE5MjU2LVMmKUBzMpf8sbTv1r93_NFud5vmudd7pw7MbwfW2Eci71jY2J7SEC_lfJ5ysPGwX4AP69jFQs%3D
Envisioning a future with climate change | Nature Climate Change

Climate change research and assessments, including the most recent IPCC report, paint an increasingly dire picture of the future. However, the assumption that the future will be worse than the present may be wrong for many aspects of human well-being.

Show threadJohn Carlos BaezSep 19, 2023
@djc - that's a great question: it's frustrating that the paper doesn't come right out and answer it. But I get the feeling from reading things that the 50% loss is relative to a hypothetical 'baseline scenario' where there is no climate change.
Show threadDavid CSep 19, 2023

@johncarlosbaez

got it, that makes sense, but also makes me a little angry b/c I know people will misread (if we're right that it's a misreading) it as 50% loss from today

climate change is a huge deal but I worry that overplaying the scariness is causing some big harms (including harms to our ability to combat the problem)

Show threadJohn Carlos BaezSep 19, 2023

@djc - yes, it makes me angry too: I was fooled, if indeed it's 50% relative to some optimistic scenario.

I don't how much of this is deliberate overplaying of scariness and how much is just how insurers and other financial types naturally think: damage being relative to some baseline scenario rather than to the present.

Show threadjohnny anhedonicSep 20, 2023
@johncarlosbaez it's fine, there will be several more layers of value arbitration between labour and captial to do rentierism on by then, that'll be able to wring more money out of the people who haven't yet been consigned to the permanent underclass who are forced to return to the barter system. no need to change anything. the economy will be fine.