Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Quantifying increased costs of living and CO2 output  (Read 2802 times)

Bugalugs

  • New ice
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 10
Quantifying increased costs of living and CO2 output
« on: July 27, 2019, 12:02:12 PM »
Cost of living increases will cause people to work more, which will in turn generate more CO2. Has this ever been studied, or quantified? Or even discussed?

I am thinking increased costs of living related to GHG mitigation costs might cause more CO2 to be produced than mitigated?

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1975
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1117
  • Likes Given: 769
Re: Quantifying increased costs of living and CO2 output
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2019, 07:59:13 PM »
They will work more if they are actually needed.

High costs should promote efficiency.

Not investing results in having 0 habitable planets (or way too much mess if you are a moderate on this).

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Quantifying increased costs of living and CO2 output
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2019, 08:10:43 PM »
Premise is faulty...

Renewables cost less than coal...

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,347.msg213718.html#msg213718

Bugalugs

  • New ice
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Quantifying increased costs of living and CO2 output
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2019, 12:46:11 AM »
I think you are both assuming that all mitigation costs have a certain level of effectiveness. Some authorities may bring in measures that are not effective. For example, if a small council buys two electric cars, and raises rates, all the ratepayers have to work a little longer, and they will be using their fossil fuel cars and tools because that's all they can afford.

End result, the "mitigation" cost creates more GHG.

I believe the GHG value of extra costs needs to be better understood. 

My concern is that councils declaring climate emergencies, while well meaning, may bring in a raft of costly but sometimes useless or even GHG-worsening measures.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5506
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 727
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Quantifying increased costs of living and CO2 output
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2019, 01:53:26 AM »
This argument works both ways.

How about cost of living savings ? lets say the council buys 2 electric cars and saves money and lowers rates ? then the townspeople have more money to spend and generate CO2 going out and spending it ?

sidd


sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5506
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 727
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Quantifying increased costs of living and CO2 output
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2019, 01:18:49 AM »
Follow the money:  climate risk is underpriced

"The market's failure to integrate climate science with investment analysis has created a mispricing phenomenon that is possibly larger than the mortgage credit bubble of the mid-2000s"

"a key culprit for the mispriced risk in the U.S. mortgage market is outdated flood maps drawn by the federal government."

"Due to budget cuts, more than three-quarters of the maps have not been updated in at least five years"

"Outdated maps mean far fewer people are required to have flood insurance than are at risk,"

"The gaps are evident: About 70% of all damages to homes that were flooded during Harvey were not covered by insurance"

"the gaps mean the risk is not properly priced. The cost for an average policy in low-risk Green Bay, Wisconsin, for example, is three times that in Gulfport, Mississippi, a town devastated by Hurricane Katrina"

"The Federal Emergency Management Agency has said it aims to fix some of these problems with a major risk re-rating on Oct. 1, 2020."

"Burt�??s bet is that the move will result in significant cost increases. That in turn will lead to home price declines and mortgage losses, which would increase volatility in RMBS prices."

"He expects a correction beginning in the next 6-18 months. "

"Investors also have been taking on more risk. Some RMBS issued by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae since 2017, called credit risk transfer (CRT) deals, move the risk  of default to the investors. In traditional agency RMBS, Fannie and Freddie cover those losses. "

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-mortgages-idUSKBN1WE0D3

sidd