The economic principle that says much about coronavirus and climate

Report after the warning, President Trump received about the growing threat documented the neo remained in the US but Trump transformed crown challenge, reports say attempts to regulate the markets and get the three years of economic growth that supported his campaign re-election. Also recommended for social distancing and closure of the US economy, Trump insisted that measures to protect human life could not last too long because he would not “be the cure may be worse than the problem itself.” This phraseology is all too familiar to anyone who has followed the last decade of the debate on climate change alert. “The panic plans resulting hinder our economy” Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio has warned in the past year, let’s try to stop should stop climate change and adapt itself. “I’m not a scientist. I am interested in protecting the economy of Kentucky” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell 2014, Die benefits do not outweigh the costs, “said Paul Ryan, the former Speaker of the House, the climate protection measures. Even to doubt casts a taste of science and industry on such statements. Both climate change and pandemic Corona is simple economics that the benefits of early action outweigh the costs. the United States had billions of dollars saved through early trading. the world transition from fossil fuels is a daunting task that comes with considerable costs, but these costs pale in comparison to the tens of billions of dollars inaction, the global economy, they do not cost the “known unknowns “to say that could end up costing a lot more. For all Trump rhetoric on economic growth, many economists have argued when it comes to both climate change and the Crown groped his government grows without considering science at the heart of questions still have done more to ensure the long-term economic damage inflicted image, to help it. to understand the reasons is economically appropriate for action on climate change, and the crown takes only a brief look at a basic concept: the cost-benefit analysis. Munching the cost-benefit analysis numbers requires many complex calculations and assumptions, but inside it is as simple as that. From the mid-20th century, economists have, whether it is worthwhile to determine a monetary value for the various costs and benefits of a particular policy measure pursued. The practice quickly took possession of the policy and has been an important tool for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To create new rules, the agency regularly compares the environmental benefits with the costs of inaction and implementation. Not surprisingly, these calculations are often the subject of intense debate. After all, how do you assign value to say, drinking water, let alone a human life? even more complicated with climate change, how to determine the value of a performance that will not be realized for years or decades in the future? Economists have for years fighting for wobbly details discussed these questions, but the Trump administration has tried to restore this debate. nixing to justify saving clean energy, Obama was a key climate policy, Trump says the EPA that the agency does not take into consideration the health benefits of clean air as part usually focused on climate change, for example. The administration also represents a measure to expel the carbon dioxide cost, as “the social cost of carbon” undermine announce least consider the impact of climate change on future generations and the rest of the world. The Obama administration, the social cost of carbon calculated about $50 per ton of carbon dioxide are emitted; the Trump administration says it is starting from $1. Of course, the pandemic Crown arrived too quickly the administration expects that a formal calculation for the cost of dealing done. But the one used by the University of Chicago economists, a rough estimate cost-benefit analysis that should be $65 Katherine of lockdowns be ready to spend to avoid deaths. This corresponds to about three years of US economic output. “He COVID-19 has prompted a large number of cost-benefit analysis,” says Gernot Wagner, economist at New York University, in a Bloomberg column. “The verdict is clear in almost all of them arrested for holding the economy down the spread of the virus, it is worth the cost.” The reopening of the plans of the Trump generally align with the recommendations of the health authorities. However, Trump seem like rhetorical no protests in countries “liberate” and promising the country back to normalcy soon have underestimated certainly take advantage of the locks. The calculation of the monetary value of climate change with a view to cope with complicated similar, but the proof is firmly on the side of the emergency measures. If handled properly, provide guidelines to reduce emissions actually huge economic benefits of clean air for green jobs. At the same time, the costs of inaction are so steep, to the point that economists fight for it responsible. A problem always applied policy on the basis of cost-benefit analysis is that many smart people working on climate prefer not to discuss climate change in terms of economy. This is understandable. The protection of human life and health, life not to mention anyone on the planet-is much more than dollars and cents. And the costs of climate change, as measured in billions of dollars, covers not only the wide cultural and social Disruption of the phenomenon most likely cause. But for those who are cost-benefit analyzes are skeptical, it is worth pessimistic climate measures stressing that the job extent, growth and money, absolute climate change, similar to the uncontrolled coronavirus is a clear loser each , Just look at the numbers. suggests a dozen federal agencies, the national evaluation of the climate, a ratio of more that uncontrolled climate change, the United States will cost $500 billion a year by the end of the century. Globally, there are tens of billions of dollars to speak in the next 30 years be saved if we act temperatures continue to rise more than 2 ° C above pre-industrial levels, the target outlined in the agreement of Paris, according to the Group intergovernmental Panel on climate change. “Deferred climatic measures will cost us much more each year in terms of lost lives and livelihoods, businesses and the economy crippled damaged,” said the secretary general of the United Nations Antonio Guterres end of last month. “The maximum cost of the cost for doing nothing.” The rest of the world is starting to get this. Now it is the turn of the United States. A version of this article was originally published in time Air one.five Newsletter, Click here to register for these stories to get there early.
Picture copyright by Jane Tyska Digital First Media / East Bay Times via Getty Images