Despite its shortcomings, Canada is not an economic basket case​

[jazz]

Is that a feature or a bug? To an anti-capitalists such as chuck, this would be a desirable outcome.

Hopefully we can get a math lesson from chuck on exactly how losing $25B in gdp per year equates to 8/10 people getting more money than they paid in. Cant wait.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Or at the very least, perhaps he can call us all climate denier racist bigots for daring to ask the question.
That seems more probable and then the odds of Chuck displaying any math comprehension

[furrowtickler]

Or at the very least, perhaps he can call us all climate denier racist bigots for daring to ask the question.
That seems more probable and then the odds of Chuck displaying any math comprehension

Spot on that comment
but if you really understand where it’s coming from it all makes sense

[furrowtickler]

I truly wonder how much he and she get paid to regurgitate the nonsense that that uncle Klause pays this coalition government in Canada to preach the gospel day after day ?

[fjlip]

Wake up chuck...your green SHYT is expensive Canada killing medicine!

[chuckChuck]

The PBO already said they screwed up on the calculations on carbon pricing by including the large emitters carbon price impact with the consumer tax.

And their report was also flawed in that they didn't calculate the cost of alternatives to carbon pricing nor calculate the cost of doing nothing.

Moe and Smith both support the large emitters tax.

Climate change has costs that will overtime cause a very large reduction in global GDP.

But don't expect the climate change deniers to acknowledge the costs of climate change even after several years of droughts, fires, and floods.

They have already forgotten the fires in Ft Mac in 2016, the 600 heat dome deaths in BC and the fire in Lytton and the several years of recent drought that caused Saskatchewan tax payers $1.5 billion in payouts in one year!

They got their heads up where the sun don't shine!

[furrowtickler]

The PBO already said they screwed up on the calculations on carbon pricing by including the large emitters carbon price impact with the consumer tax.

And their report was also flawed in that they didn't calculate the cost of alternatives to carbon pricing nor calculate the cost of doing nothing.

Moe and Smith both support the large emitters tax.

Climate change has costs that will overtime cause a very large reduction in global GDP.

But don't expect the climate change deniers to acknowledge the costs of climate change even after several years of droughts, fires, and floods.

They have already forgotten the fires in Ft Mac in 2016, the 600 heat dome deaths in BC and the fire in Lytton and the several years of recent drought that caused Saskatchewan tax payers $1.5 billion in payouts in one year!

They got their heads up where the sun don't shine!

Nah that be you , no one ever said there was no drought or fires
you just continue to exaggerate and mislead

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Climate change has costs that will overtime cause a very large reduction in global GDP.

Actually, you have that completely backwards according to the peer reviewed science:

https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1729916834600595632

[chuckChuck]

Wrong again A5!

[url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-climate-change-will-knock-one-third-off-world-economy-study-shows/[/url]

analysis

Climate change will knock one-third off world economy, study shows

John Rapley is an author and academic who divides his time among London, Johannesburg and Ottawa. His books include Why Empires Fall (Yale University Press, 2023) and Twilight of the Money Gods (Simon and Schuster, 2017).

Ever since economist William Nordhaus ([url]https://www.jstor.org/stable/2880417[/url]) established the macroeconomics of climate change in his 1992 work estimating the long-term economic effects of climate change, most studies coalesced around the view that for every degree of global warming, the world economy would contract by 1 or 3 per cent – challenging, but manageable.

However, recent studies ([url]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07219-0#:~:text=Specifically%2C%20macroeconomic%20impact[/url] s%20have%20been,temperature2%2C3%2C18.) have begun questioning the consensus and predicting much deeper falls in output, in part because the planet is warming faster than earlier assumed. Now, a new paper ([url]https://www.nber.org/papers/w32450?utm_campaign=ntwh&utm_medium=email&utm_sour[/url] ce=ntwg7) released this week from the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research may shatter the orthodoxy altogether.

Climate change will eventually reduce the value of the global economy by almost one-third, according to Harvard University’s Adrien Bilal and Diego Kanzig of Northwestern University.

Their paper, “The Macroeconomic Impact of Climate Change: Global vs. Local Temperature,” represents a departure from previous studies.

When the macroeconomics of climate change first emerged as a subdiscipline, its practitioners tended to take scientific estimates of expected future warming and then model the effects on a country-by-country basis, focusing only on the productivity effects of rising temperatures.

But it’s becoming clearer that extreme weather is one of the main channels through which climate change is affecting the economy. Having found that the incidence of extreme weather correlates more closely with global than national temperature changes – storms and droughts don’t respect borders – this study builds a new model that estimates this effect.

They found that previous estimates of climate change ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/climate-change/)considerably[/url] underestimated the macroeconomic damage of extreme weather, which not only hits productivity but also depletes capital. Once this is factored in, what emerges is a world economy that would be 31 per cent poorer by the end of this century.

Moreover, they argue, the damage has already begun. Had there been no global warming since 1960, they reckon the world economy would be 37 per cent bigger than it is today. We do know that the global growth rate has been slowing, especially in Western countries. A recent article in London’s Financial Times ([url]https://www.ft.com/content/ee51d83e-0037-4130-a4f9-656aa7c4ca97[/url]) listed Canada at the top of the “breakdown nations” – former “model” economies – leading the world economy backward. There’s considerable discussion as to what’s causing this reversal, but there are growing reasons to think that the feedback loops of climate change are only just starting to wreak havoc on our economies.

Because we’re still in the early stages of this cycle, the damage will worsen. The trend line in the number and severity of extreme weather events and zoonotic pandemics has been rising for decades, and we haven’t yet repriced assets to allow for the future impact of climate change. While the authors say their paper can’t estimate the effect, a clue of what’s coming may lie in the sharp and sudden inflation that’s happening in insurance policies. Our future may be one in which we have to spend more money repairing roads and homes, pay higher taxes to cover the bills, and watch the value of our investments fall.




Most importantly for Canadian audiences, their model suggested the differences across countries won’t be as significant as previous models predicted. While warmer and middle-income countries are expected to suffer a little bit more, all countries are likely to be hit. After all, extreme weather doesn’t discriminate between rich and poor countries. Canada won’t get a pass.

In rich countries, there is a lot more infrastructure to be damaged by extreme weather, and older populations will be more vulnerable to its effects, raising social and health care costs. Following global temperature shocks, capital and investment are depleted and productivity falls, making the bounce-backs from environmental shocks progressively slower.

Carbon taxes should ideally mirror the social cost of carbon – the economic damage done by the addition of carbon to the atmosphere. Canada’s carbon tax just rose to $80 a tonne. Previous estimates of the social cost of carbon put it in the $100-200 range. This new study suggested it should be much higher, though, above $1,000, and that if we don’t pay it now, we’ll pay it later.

How much would we have to pay later? Profs. Bilal and Kanzig calculate that if we stay on our current course, the eventual economic price would be equivalent to fighting a domestic war, forever. The next time someone suggests that we should fight climate change only if the price isn’t too high, you could ask them what price they’d be willing to pay not to live in an eternal Ukraine or Gaza.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So what makes your peer reviewed science better than my peer reviewed science?

I thought the science was settled?

Don't you keep asking for credible scientific organizations and peer reviewed science?

[chuckChuck]

Where is the link reference and journal this is published in?
Its just on X.

[rumrocks]

[QUOTE=chuckChuck;

Climate change has costs that will overtime cause a very large reduction in global GDP.

But don't expect the climate change deniers to acknowledge the costs of climate change even after several years of droughts, fires, and floods.

They have already forgotten the fires in Ft Mac in 2016, the 600 heat dome deaths in BC and the fire in Lytton and the several years of recent drought that caused Saskatchewan tax payers $1.5 billion in payouts in one year!
[/QUOTE]

It would be a tough sell for Trudeau to tax open fires for cooking and coal oil lamps that were responsible for the droughts in the 1700 and 1800's.
Just stop and think this through Chuck.

https://www.producer.com/news/prairies-no-stranger-to-damaging-droughts/