# Trump’s abandonment of Paris climate deal to cost U.S. economy trillions, new study reveals



## Jessica123 (Jun 1, 2018)

Trump’s abandonment of Paris climate deal to cost U.S. economy trillions, new study reveals
Benefits of climate action are over a hundred times larger than the cost of cutting carbon pollution
Joe Romm
May 29, 2018, 12:56 pm



> A new study from Stanford finds that failure to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Accord will cost the the U.S. economy several trillion dollars in the coming decades — and cost the world economy tens of trillions of dollars.
> 
> The study, “Large potential reduction in economic damages under UN mitigation targets,” was published in the journal Nature last week. It is among the first to analyze the economic benefits of keeping global warming to the levels unanimously agreed to by more than 190 nations at the 2015 Paris climate summit.
> President Trump has made the U.S. a rogue nation — the only one in the world to abandon the agreement — under the misguided notion that it will hurt our economy. The reverse is true.




https://thinkprogres...y-575120a5870a/

Pretty sad when you consider that Trump is harming our economy in everyway imaginable but his base just doesn't have the brain power to get it.


----------



## K9Buck (Jun 1, 2018)

Have you ever visited a psychiatrist?


----------



## cnm (Jun 1, 2018)

Jessica123 said:


> Pretty sad when you consider that Trump is harming our economy in everyway imaginable but his base just doesn't have the brain power to get it.


See? Immediately demonstrated. Home schooled, I bet.


----------



## Jessica123 (Jun 1, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> Have you ever visited a psychiatrist?




Have you? You don't believe in science and you believe in an guy in the clouds so you almost certainly need it more.


----------



## william the wie (Jun 1, 2018)

Jessica123 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever visited a psychiatrist?
> ...



The postulates of AGW were disproven in 1961 at the MIT meteorological lab. google Lorenz and Chaos. AGW was created from BS and is kept alive by fraud.


----------



## martybegan (Jun 1, 2018)

Jessica123 said:


> Trump’s abandonment of Paris climate deal to cost U.S. economy trillions, new study reveals
> Benefits of climate action are over a hundred times larger than the cost of cutting carbon pollution
> Joe Romm
> May 29, 2018, 12:56 pm
> ...



Thinkprogress?

LOL

As usual studies like this provide the benefits as things that don't actually provide any savings to anyone. Yet the actual costs are in hard values, in both actual investment and loss of productivity due to regulation, loss of innovation, and actual limits on technology.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 1, 2018)

Many have said that wasnt going to do anything anyways
Not to mention, AGW is based on models, politics and assumption


----------



## Sunni Man (Jun 1, 2018)

Jessica123 said:


> Trump’s abandonment of Paris climate deal to cost U.S. economy trillions, new study reveals it.


Trillions isn't that much.

Now if it was Jillions of dollars.....I'd be worried.  ....


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Jun 1, 2018)

Think Progress.  That means no one is going to believe it but cotton headed liberals.


----------



## cnm (Jun 1, 2018)

william the wie said:


> The postulates of AGW were disproven in 1961 at the MIT meteorological lab. google Lorenz and Chaos.


So that's why there's a consensus, because it was falsified. Ffs. Why don't you show us the evidence?


----------



## cnm (Jun 1, 2018)

TNHarley said:


> Not to mention, AGW is based on models, politics and assumption


Have you falsified the green house gas theory?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 1, 2018)

The OP is correct, and the nay sayers are wrong and know it.

What is in it for them to nay say?


----------



## martybegan (Jun 1, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> The OP is correct, and the nay sayers are wrong and know it.
> 
> What is in it for them to nay say?



The assumptions in the OP's article are pure unadulterated bulshit, with made up benefits and grossly underestimated costs. 

again, Thinkprogress, LOL


----------



## kiwiman127 (Jun 1, 2018)

ThinkProgress?  No.
But InfoWars, ZeroHedge, ConservativeTree;etc, Yes!


----------



## martybegan (Jun 1, 2018)

kiwiman127 said:


> ThinkProgress?  No.
> But InfoWars, ZeroHedge, ConservativeTree;etc, Yes!



You ever see me quote any of those?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 1, 2018)

Trump supporters aren't interested in facts and the truth.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 1, 2018)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Trump supporters aren't interested in facts and the truth.



Well Trump is trying to do his part to combat global warming with gas prices over $3 bucks..


----------



## kiwiman127 (Jun 1, 2018)

martybegan said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > ThinkProgress?  No.
> ...



My comment was not directed at any specific poster, but more so, a large group who insist in on using obvious short hyper partisan resources.
To answer your question. No, I can’t say I have ever seen you using crap resources.


----------



## MarathonMike (Jun 3, 2018)

Jessica123 said:


> Trump’s abandonment of Paris climate deal to cost U.S. economy trillions, new study reveals
> Benefits of climate action are over a hundred times larger than the cost of cutting carbon pollution
> Joe Romm
> May 29, 2018, 12:56 pm
> ...


OMFG that might the most retarded thing I've heard all year and there is PLENTY of competition. This thread receives the rare MEGA LAME rating.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2018)

Commissioned by the British government and led by economist Nicholas Stern, the massive report was the first of its kind to quantify the costs to address climate change and its impact on the global economy vs. what would happen if the world continued emitting carbon pollution unchecked.

It found that cutting carbon emissions so that carbon dioxide peaked in the range of 450-550 parts per million would cost 1 percent of the GDP annually, but ignoring climate change could cause economic damage on the order of up to 20 percent of the GDP. Translated into real world numbers, the Stern Review put a price of about $85 per ton of carbon pollution emitted today, well above the current rate used by the U.S. of $40 per ton.

It’s a stark finding — though one that has yet to inspire major action — that was both heralded as a breakthrough and hotly debated in the intervening decade.

10 Years on, Climate Economists Reflect on Stern Review

*More to come*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2018)

*What’s the legacy of the Stern Review?
How have its conclusions held up over time?*
*Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute:* The legacy is exceedingly important. Until then, economists didn’t really focus adequately on issues of climate change or at least they had a relatively naive review of things. What the Stern Review did is by careful way of marshalling evidence of costs and benefits, it provided a massive leap forward in our understanding of the economics of climate change.

The conclusions have stayed correct but the messages would be much stronger if it were written today than they were then. The case for action is much more clear today than it was back then. That’s partly because technology has changed, making the transition to a low carbon future much more cost-effective. Second, because we’re 10 years on, the problem has become more obvious. Essentially, the costs of inaction have gone up and costs of action have come down a lot.

*Kate Gordon, vice chair of climate and sustainable urbanization at the Paulson Institute:* The Stern Review was critically important in moving the climate issue from one of science to one of economics. It has inspired a huge amount of work afterward, including the Risky Business Project, which in its pilot phase was actually known as “the Stern Review for the U.S.” So its legacy is one of opening the door to a sober economic conversation about the implications of climate change, which is critically important. Its specific conclusions may be less useful as we move from climate diplomacy to the operational phase of climate mitigation, as those economic and workforce development strategies are profoundly local and must be done at a far more granular level than the Stern Review used.

*Amir Jina, postdoctoral researcher at the University of Chicago:* Two main contributions stand out to me. First, maybe more than any other single publication, the Stern Review helped to reframe climate change as an economic issue, not just a scientific one. Second, it provided the research community with a strong motivation to discuss some of the thornier questions about climate change economics — the debate about how we value the future being perhaps the most obvious one. There's a downside to the latter, in that it maybe made us focus too much in the past decade on issues that were in the review rather than all the evidence that wasn't in there.

10 Years on, Climate Economists Reflect on Stern Review

*The Stern report can be had for free in it's entirety.*


----------



## elektra (Sep 6, 2018)

This is an accurate OP. It will cost trillions upon trillion upon trillions, for years to build Solar and Wind power. Most of the time required is to print the money. We can build Solar panels and Wind power 24/7, but it will take years to print the trillions of dollars to pay for them.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 11, 2018)

Poor little Miss Elektra, just has not caught up yet with even the 20th century, let alone the 21st. Cannot realize that most of wealth transfers do not involve cash at all, just numbers on a computer.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 11, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Poor little Miss Elektra, just has not caught up yet with even the 20th century, let alone the 21st. Cannot realize that most of wealth transfers do not involve cash at all, just numbers on a computer.




Then why did obozo send a pallet full of money to Iran that the left insists wasn't "Ransom" money????


----------



## elektra (Sep 11, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Poor little Miss Elektra, just has not caught up yet with even the 20th century, let alone the 21st. Cannot realize that most of wealth transfers do not involve cash at all, just numbers on a computer.


How about replying in the Tesla Sucks thread where you put both feet in your mouth. How many electric cars, millions right! Ha, ha, ha. Hey, they counted toy slot cars to get that number, right? You got balls here but not where you opened your big mouth and stuffed both feet in. 

Wealth transfers? So Solar and Wind energy are simply wealth transfers. Yep, I agree. A big giant scam to transfer wealth to those the DemoRATS choose.


----------



## MarathonMike (Sep 11, 2018)

OMFG Liberal Think Tanks and their so called "studies".


----------



## elektra (Sep 12, 2018)

MarathonMike said:


> OMFG Liberal Think Tanks and their so called "studies".


ask them to post or link, they cant


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 12, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Poor little Miss Elektra, just has not caught up yet with even the 20th century, let alone the 21st. Cannot realize that most of wealth transfers do not involve cash at all, just numbers on a computer.
> ...


Silly ass, that was Iran's money that we froze when they took our embassy. You 'Conservatives' are so fucking ignorant.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 12, 2018)

elektra said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > OMFG Liberal Think Tanks and their so called "studies".
> ...


http://mudancasclimaticas.cptec.inpe.br/~rmclima/pdfs/destaques/sternreview_report_complete.pdf

Want to bet?


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > MarathonMike said:
> ...







Have you read that bullshit you posted?  I doubt it.  It is based on model after model after model.  And loads of opinion.  There is no actual hard science anywhere within that ridiculous "report".  

How about coming up with a link to something factual.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Sep 12, 2018)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The OP is correct, and the nay sayers are wrong and know it.
> ...



You are attacking the messenger, you think, but in actually it wasn't _Think Progress_ or even _Nature, it was _Stanford University.
So, why not attack the message?
Large potential reduction in economic damages under UN mitigation targets | Nature


----------



## martybegan (Sep 12, 2018)

kiwiman127 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Studies like this are worth less than the paper they are printed on.

Too many assumptions, and too many inputs that can be manipulated to achieve the required end result.


----------



## elektra (Sep 13, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> ask them to post or link, they cant


http://mudancasclimaticas.cptec.inpe.br/~rmclima/pdfs/destaques/sternreview_report_complete.pdf
Want to bet?[/QUOTE]
Sure, I will bet, I bet $1,000 you dont know what you just linked to. I bet you have no idea what bullshit you just posted. I bet that the reason you did not quote nor comment on your link is because you were too dumb to read it. Liberal retards use liberal google like a deck cards. As if google gave them a wild card and they thus win simply by copying and pasting a link. Your link is garbage and irrelevant. Quote and comment from the link or simply be a fool. And yes Old Crock, everyone sees when you can not support and validate your own comments. Your ideas are all pretty stupid, that is why you run from every single reply to your co.ments.


----------



## elektra (Sep 13, 2018)

kiwiman127 said:


> You are attacking the messenger, you think, but in actually it wasn't _Think Progress_ or even _Nature, it was _Stanford University.
> So, why not attack the message?
> Large potential reduction in economic damages under UN mitigation targets | Nature


Nice LETTER, it states it will cost $350 trillion to change the climate. Finally a bit of truth.


----------

