Citi Says Climate Change to Cost $44 Trillion through 2060

Citigroup has just issued a report from their Alternative Energy and Cleantech Research Unit, saying that “The central case we have in the report is that the costs in terms of lost (gross domestic product) GDP from not acting on climate change can be $44 trillion dollars by the time we get to 2060.” The report can be found here.

Having looked through the report, I can only say that if Citigroup uses the same logic for all their business decisions, you should not buy their stock. I just would also like to add that they don’t mention they’ve invested $100 billion in financing their solution to this $44 trillion problem.

Nonetheless, the report says that if we don’t adopt the green solution that they want to finance, the world  will spend $1.8 trillion more on fuel and capital expenditures than we would if we go green. Which is interesting, given that most sources say green energy is more capital intensive than fossil fuels. (I strongly support adoption of renewable energy, but that’s despite the higher capital costs, not because of it.)

But $1.8 trillion is nowhere near close to $44 trillion. Wherein lies the difference?

Well, they say that damages due to climate change of 2.5C will be $44 trillion. If calculated at a 0% discount rate.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believes that temperatures will rise by between 0.3C and 0.7C by 2035. I guess the period between 2035 and 2060 will be… dramatic.

As for the zero discount rate, that is just… crazy. Nicholas Stern was heavily criticized by economists the world over for using a discount rate as low as 1.4%. Typically, the discount rate for exercises such as this is 5%.

Looking around me in 2015, I do not see evidence of $1 trillion in losses to global GDP caused by climate change. Looking around me I don’t see anyone even claiming such a thing. We are not housing millions of climate refugees. The millions of refugees we see are fleeing conflict and poverty. The head of the UNHCR gave an impassioned speech asking for help with refugees. He mentioned conflict and poverty–not one word about climate change.

I do not see evidence of $1 trillion in losses to GDP this year from storms, floods or drought. I just sat through the strongest typhoon of the year in Taipei. Damage was slight, as was loss of life. It was not considered anything more than slightly unusual. Hurricane frequency and intensity are down. Floods and drought are occurring at normal historical levels.

Well, maybe next year we’ll have $2 trillion in damages?

Citigroup lost 90% of their share value due to poor decisions. They’ve gone through more CEOs than a bad baseball team goes through pitchers. They have lost billions for their investors, been subject to billions in fines for regulatory infractions. They have laundered hundreds of millions of dollars for drug traffickers.

Sounds like the right people to be telling us how horrible climate change is going to be and how using their special green finance vehicles is just the right thing to save us.

99-bankers-2011

Advertisements

5 responses to “Citi Says Climate Change to Cost $44 Trillion through 2060

  1. Tom,

    “the report says that if we don’t adopt the green solution that they want to finance”

    Spot on. Government mandates and subsidies attract rent seekers like roadkill attracts flies. And rent seekers lobby for mandates and subsidies.

    “I strongly support adoption of renewable energy, but that’s despite the higher capital costs, not because of it.”

    I that means that you personally are willing to pay more, fine. If that means that you want to have the government make me pay more, then we are in opposition. That puts you on the side of Citigroup and similar rent seekers.

    I am convinced that we are going to have to greatly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, likely before the end of this century. The sooner, the better. But what will bring that about is the creation of economically competitive alternatives, not mandates and subsidies that will hit a wall long before they make much difference.

    Mandates and subsidies might well *delay* the replacement of fossil fuels. They attract resources into whatever technologies are positioned now to collect the rents. If those technologies are dead ends (I suspect both wind and Si solar may be such) then promoting them does not help solve the long run problem. And it may delay the long term solution if the resources devoted to rent collection are drawn from long term investment into less ready but ultimately more promising approaches,

  2. These threads of deceit and misdirection are pulled directly from the Whitehouse of the President you so much admire.

  3. Tom,
    The Administration is making a full court press on as many fronts as possible to push cute little reports like this bit of fluff from Citi in the run up to Paris.
    http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2015/01/white-house-climate-lunacy.html

    No big master conspiracy, just steady encouragement of hype and bs.

    This is the same President that gave a tweet out to Cook and his execrable bogus 97% study, you might recall.
    And then was this bit of cynical manipulation:
    https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/04/the-irony-of-obamas-climate-change-propaganda

  4. Tobe sure, the quality of the work by the climate kooks reminds me more of
    the negotiating skills of:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s