Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth The Almighty Buck United States

By 2050, the US Will Lose $83 Billion a Year Because of All the Nature We've Destroyed (fastcompany.com) 187

Posted by BeauHD from the what-to-expect dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fast Company: The world economy depends on nature, from coral reefs that protect coastal cities from flooding to insects that pollinate crops. But by the middle of the century, the loss of key "ecosystem services" could cost the world $479 billion each year. The U.S. will lose more than any other country, with an $83 billion loss to the GDP per year by 2050. That's a conservative estimate. The projection comes from a report, called Global Futures, from World Wildlife Fund, which looked at only six of the services that nature provides and how those might change because of the impacts of climate breakdown, lost wildlife habitat, and other human-caused destruction of nature. (Many other services will also be impacted but can't currently be accurately modeled; the study also doesn't take into account the possibility of tipping points that lead to sudden, catastrophic losses of natural services.) By 2050, if the world continues on its current path, the global economy could lose $327 billion a year as we lose natural coastal protection from coral reefs, mangrove forests, and other natural systems. Another $128 billion could be lost annually from forests and peatlands that store carbon. Agriculture could lose $15 billion from lost pollinators and $19 billion from reduced water availability. Food costs are likely to go up, threatening food security in some regions. "In the U.S., the biggest losses will come from lost coastal protection and losses in marine fisheries," adds Fast Company. "Because of the size of the U.S. economy, it will lose most in absolute terms. But developing countries will be hit hardest in terms of the percentage of GDP lost; Madagascar tops that list, followed by Togo, Vietnam, and Mozambique."

If the world is able to radically change course and protect areas most critical for biodiversity and ecosystem services, the global annual GDP could, instead, grow $11 billion by 2050.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

By 2050, the US Will Lose $83 Billion a Year Because of All the Nature We've Destroyed More

By 2050, the US Will Lose $83 Billion a Year Because of All the Nature We've Destroyed

Comments Filter:
  • 83 billion a year, even if lost directly by the US oligarchy, can readily be reimbursed by a very small increase in the US government debt. Nobody will even blink.

    • 83 billion a year, even if lost directly by the US oligarchy, can readily be reimbursed by a very small increase in the US government debt. Nobody will even blink.

      The budgeted interterest payments on federal loans for the fiscal year 2020 is $479 billion. https://www.thebalance.com/int... [thebalance.com]

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @04:59AM (#59722904)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • 83 billion a year, even if lost directly by the US oligarchy, can readily be reimbursed by a very small increase in the US government debt. Nobody will even blink.

          The budgeted interterest payments on federal loans for the fiscal year 2020 is $479 billion. https://www.thebalance.com/int... [thebalance.com]

          What the hell are you two going on about? This is talking about loss to GDP. Gross Domestic Product. This has nothing to do with federal borrowing.... This is a reduction in the total value of all Goods and Services produced by the United States. It's fucking pocket change.

          US GDP is predicted to be about $32 trillion by 2030.. Our GDP is projected to increase by $10 T per decade for the next few decades, so by 2050, we should be somewhere near $50 Trillion GPD ...

          Assuming some trend is infinitely sustainable is the root cause of every bubble, every economic crash and every recession in modern human history.

  • i guess like always (Score:3, Insightful)

    by arbiter1 ( 1204146 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @11:43PM (#59722380)
    China is never looked at in any these studies/projection's cause they don't want to make them mad? China and that side of the planet in general do far more harm then the US.

    • Re:i guess like always (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @11:47PM (#59722396)

      China is never looked at in any these studies/projection's cause they don't want to make them mad?

      This is about White Man's Guilt, and the Chinese aren't white.

      • This is about White Man's Guilt, and the Chinese aren't white.

        They are honorary white people now, because they have acquired so much Evil Technology, and are thus eligible to share the Blame For All Ills.

        I spend too much time in the outdoors to have any respect for environmental activists.

    • Re:i guess like always (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mi ( 197448 ) <slashdot-2017q4@virtual-estates.net> on Thursday February 13, 2020 @12:02AM (#59722460) Homepage Journal

      China is already Communist — there is no need to kindle the fire of dissatisfaction necessary for the Revolution in it.

    • Whataboutism or what?

  • The Green New Deal is estimated to cost around $75 to $93 TRILLION dollars. By all means, let's drop 100 times more than we'll save! Let's do it now! That's a return worse than even T-bills - but we must do it!
    • Let's give up on saving the planet! The made-up Fox News number is too high!

      • Re:Well then, let's spend! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @12:25AM (#59722516) Journal
        Bringing clean water and sanitation to everyone on Earth will run $150 billon [reuters.com] annually. How about we do that, instead? Even on the low end, the Green New Deal runs $20 TRILLION. The interest on that much money alone pretty much pays for fresh water and sanitation for everyone. And that would dramatically improve the lives of billions.

        • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @08:08AM (#59723252)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • Don't forget guaranteed jobs for all - and the right o unionize every single job in the US! That's in the GND too... It also talks about what it wants to do - but zero information about how it will do it, or how much it will cost. It's just a wish list for unicorns for everyone!

        • Re:Well then, let's spend! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by necro81 ( 917438 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @09:22AM (#59723410) Journal

          Even on the low end, the Green New Deal runs $20 TRILLION.

          You say that like the plan is to take that money into a field and burn it - that there is and never will be a return on that investment. Furthermore, you're making an implicit assumption that continuing business as usual has zero cost, which it does not.

          Consider this microeconomic analog: a homeowner that is considering a solar installation. The cost may be tens of thousands of dollars up front. That's a fair bit of capital, but it's not the end of the story. The installation will have a rated life of at least 25 years, and will produce something of value - electricity. (There are plenty of secondary and ancillary benefits, but let's stick just to kWh for now.) Meanwhile, if the homeowner doesn't pull the trigger and make this investment, he or she will absolutely end up paying someone else for electricity over that same 25-yr project life. Furthermore, the cost of the electricity produced by the PV array is quite predictable, while the future costs of grid-supplied electricity are not. What is the cost of that uncertainty? What is the value in reducing that uncertainty.

          One cannot make an informed economic choice only by tallying the costs, but also considering the benefits, risks, and opportunity costs of alternatives (like doing nothing).

          • You're ignoring the time-value of money. What if the homeowner put that money into a market account, tracking the S&P500 and averaged 8% return annually? Do they make more than $2000 per year in solar power? No? Then they are down money. Meaning resources to buy that energy elsewhere AND have additional funds for other improvements in their life.

            Seems you forgot about the opportunity costs...

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by necro81 ( 917438 )

              Seems you forgot about the opportunity costs...

              Reading comprehension, dude. I concluded my comment with: "considering the benefits, risks, and opportunity costs of alternatives." I know how to plug a net-present-value calculation into Excel, and so does the business community. The fact that money is pouring into new solar installations suggests that there are plenty of cases where one can make money doing it.

              When talking about government spending in general (defense, social security, etc.), and the

              • And interestingly enough, that money stops pouring into solar installations (or EV purchases) when the Government grants/kickbacks stop. So the ONLY reason there was money pouring in was because of Government largesse, not because it is a better economic model.

        • As you note, money is not the problem with starvation. The problem is lawlessness, and lack of will to impose it. That *will* cost a lot more than $150 billion, but even then, money is not the issue.

          What you have to do it go clean out the despots that run these places (unfortunately, almost all in Africa) with force, and then impose a solution on them, also with force, for at least a few *generations*, so all the people who remember the old ways die off (and, if you were to help them along with that, then O

    • Your estimates of cost likely come from oil backed studies. They don't count the stimulus effect of GND, instead accounting ever dollar spent as a dollar lost. If we're using math like that, let's end the near trillion dollars a year oil subsidies ASAP.
      • OK, what do YOU think the cost is, and where are these $1 trillion in oil subsidies? Show both, please.

  • I would be more concerned if there weren't hundreds of thousands of acres locally, growing all kinds of fruits and vegetables, and even free range chickens wandering into my yard.

    If I was living at or below sea level, I would be looking into selling or renting, and increasing insurance.

  • Is that all? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by blogagog ( 1223986 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @11:53PM (#59722430)
    You do realize our economy grows by more than $83B/year every year, right?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by galabar ( 518411 )
      At a 2.5% growth rate or 19.4 trillion dollar economy will grow to 40.7 trillion by 2050. I think we can afford the $83B/year.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      So just destroy all the nature because the economy will cover that loss?

      The point here is that someone is losing $83 billion because someone else is destroying nature for profit. It's the reason why "green" taxes are a good idea - they stop people externalizing their costs and help the people forced to pay them.

  • hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bloodhawk ( 813939 )
    I know it is terrible and all that, But 83 billion? this is a rounding error and is basically saying almost zero effect and that it can be easily ignored.

    • It says it would be worth spending at least $83 billion to combat it, entirely independent of non-financial considerations such as quality of life.

      • Nonsense, because we'll get many times that yield from agriculture, mining, etc.

        It's nothing.

        • Enjoy your life in hell.

      • No it doesn't say that at all, given some of the impact will happen regardless and additionally there will almost certainly also be lost revenue from knockon effects from not mining etc. Don't get me wrong I am definitely all for saving the environment and it always makes good sense to clean up our ways. But all this study shows is that financially it doesn't make sense.

        • this study shows is that financially it doesn't make sense

          It shows the opposite to me, and I think, most rational observers. But please state your case, which you have not done.

          • stated mine, you however did no such thing.

            • I'm going with the article for my case. You are going with handwaving about "lost revenue from knockon effects from not mining". As if mining must necessarily stop. If that's your case then you haven't got one.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      People get ill and die because of pollution. If you are ill or dying you can't really ignore it because it's only $83 billion which is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

      The problem is you can't easily sue all the people destroying nature and polluting to recover your costs either. The damage is widely distributed and you won't be able to prove direct culpability in court.

  • The Population Bomb (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Koby77 ( 992785 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @12:28AM (#59722522)
    I remember there were a number of scary predictions in the past, like The Population Bomb which predicted hundreds of millions would die from starvation by the year 2000. And Peak Oil, where the world would run out of reasonably priced fuel. The predictions of doom, of course, never happened. The models are usually wrong, and they often don't account for free market incentives to produce or innovate.

    • Re:The Population Bomb (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Brett Buck ( 811747 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @01:15AM (#59722602)

      Actually, it was even more absurdly wrong than that:

      The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate...

            Of course, that didn't happen, nor the predicted world revolution over starvation and overcrowding.Erlich was made a celebrity, and is still at it, predicting the same thing. While, in reality, the current production capacity of the earth GREATLY exceeds the requirements of survival, and production is intentionally restricted because there's not point in making any more, and overdoing crashes the price.

      The only places people are routinely living on the edge of starvation are places that local politics and infighting prevents distribution. That could easily be solved by simply shooting everyone currently starving their own countrymen, but we aren't going to do that.

            The entire history of these predictions is numbingly repetitive, a dire epochal disaster is coming, and when no one pays attention, the predictions become more and more shrill as they get desperate, until everybody just gets sick of them, and then someone starts a new cycle.

      It's doing the world and science a great disservice to keep hyping one nonsensical cry of Wolf! over and over again. It undermines real work, and people eat up the sensationalist nonsense.
             

  • ... we won't be getting our damage deposit back.

  • Green 101 - Always Make Far Flung Predictions (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ashthon ( 5513156 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @01:02AM (#59722578)

    If you make predictions sufficiently far into the future, there's no way to refute them or have any rational debate. The green body has been using this technique for decades, making wild predictions about the future that are impossible to refute at the time.

    Unfortunately for them, the internet has made it easy to look back and laugh at their predictions. Take this article [theguardian.com] in the Guardian from August 1999, which reports on a study by the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit. Yes, that's the same University of East Anglia the climategate emails were leaked from. It predicts that:

    By 2020, visitors to the Costa del Sol could risk contracting malaria as global warming brings more frequent heatwaves, making the country a suitable habitat for malaria-bearing mosquitoes

    Hmm, I haven't heard about any malaria outbreaks in Spain.

    the eastern Mediterranean will be as hot as the Sahara desert, flash floods will swamp parts of the American coastline and there will be almost no snow in the Alps.

    Um...nope.

    Meanwhile, some islands in the Maldives could disappear as they are submerged by rising sea levels.

    Let me check. No, the Maldives are still there.

    Areas such as the Mediterranean - a popular destination for British tourists - could become unbearable during the traditional summer holiday season. As temperatures begin to soar, many tourists will stay away.

    No, the Mediterranean is still a popular destinations for British tourists, and I haven't heard anyone saying the temperatures are unbearable.

    Winter tourism will be affected in the Alps and other European skiing destinations from the impact of less snowfall and shorter skiing seasons

    My brother just got back from a skiing holiday in the Alps. He had a great time. You know, because it was all still covered in snow. If it wasn't covered in snow his skiing holiday would have been a bit shit.

    So, that was all bullshit from the "scientists" at the University of East Anglia. Of course, they're not actually scientists, just Marxists using environmentalism as a front to push a socialist agenda and increase immigration for "climate refuges." Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabart, gave the game away when he said [nationalreview.com] about the Green New Deal, "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing." It would apparently advance "social, economic, racial, regional and gender-based justice and equality and cooperative and public ownership." Once again, we see that environmentalism is just socialism by the back door.

    Anyway, I'll see you boys in 2050 when we can look back at this article and have a good laugh. Assuming we're not living in some sort of Marxist nightmare by then.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Dwedit ( 232252 )

      It's a catch 22, pollution causes Global Dimming, which partially counteracts global warming. As bad as pollution is, it has the one side effect.

    • Re:Green 101 - Always Make Far Flung Predictions (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ichijo ( 607641 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @06:28AM (#59723056) Journal

      You really should read the cited report instead of the newspaper's highly sensationalized version of it. The report itself is actually quite tame.

      I don't think you should use newspaper headlines as proof of anything other than the fact that newspapers will say anything to make a buck!

  • The sad part... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13, 2020 @01:06AM (#59722586)

    Our politics are so divisive this is now a discussion of whether to spend 83 billion or whether this is all made up BS.

    Why can't we all decide things such as "clean fresh water is good for us" and spend what it takes to provide it?

    Or having a standing grove of trees is better than another office park and strip mall?

    Or having cleaner air makes us healthier? Or sustainable food sources are better than cows packed into tiny cages?

    Or have homes without lead poisoning from the city's pipes?

    We don't have to take a big 83 billion dollar hit at one time or face immediate annihilation.

    We could pick just one of these issues, agree that it would help us, our children and our planet, deal with the cost impacts, then when the issue is resolved, we pick another.

    We didn't get in this mess overnight, and nor will we be able to get ourselves out of this mess overnight either.

    You deal with it the same way you eat an elephant; one bite at a time.

  • The question is, will our descendants remember? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @01:15AM (#59722604) Homepage Journal

    We've *already* have destroyed much of the ecological wealth of the country; we just moved onto substitutes.

    Up until WW2, people didn't eat chickens much. Chickens were for laying eggs and were too scrawny to be good eating. The most common, meat on American's tables from colonial times until the late 1800s was pigeon -- specifically *passenger pigeon*.

    Larger than the more familiar city pigeon, passenger pigeons darkened the skies in flocks measuring hundreds of square miles. When they were migrating you didn't aim at them. You must pointed your gun in the air and fired until you were out of ammunition, then picked up the birds and packed them in a barrel of salt. Trade passenger pigeons spurred the development of railroads in remote areas. In one town in then near-wilderness Michigan packed 50,000 birds a day, every day, for five months out of the year.

    Similar stories can be told of anadromous fish runs like shad or salmon, which provided protein to coastal populations from colonial times until the rivers were dammed for mills in the 1800s. While reduced runs still occur on some larger rivers, many small local runs were finished off by pollution in the 1950s and 60s.

    Same story for native trout. In my neck of the woods fisherman their are still fishermen who remember catching brook trout in local rivers in the early 60s. By the end of the decade pollution had wiped out the wild population. Today the streams are too warm for brook trout to spawn; all we get are rainbows, a fine game fish in its native range but out of a hatchery as dumb as a brick.

    • The passenger pigeon is an interesting edge case. Normally when a game species approaches being hunted out, the last remaining individuals hide in the least successful places. If humanity still wants to hunt them, we have to develop ways of farming them and maintaining a sustainable population. That is why we still have trout and bison.

      The passenger pigeon was unique in being sustainable only in large colonies. As soon as any colony population dropped below a certain level that could not have been knowable

  • Climate breakdown? (Score:3)

    by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @01:39AM (#59722642) Journal
    Will some kind fo tax help with that?
    Who do we pay the tax to? The federal gov so it can fund experts?
    Experts who will tell us all about "climate breakdown"? They need the money to educate everyone globally:
    The UN?
    An actor?
    A think tank?
    Some NGO?
    A social media company.
    A browser company.
    An ad company.
    Some very wealthy philanthropist who has direct views on the tax rate and who should get a lot of direct payments from a climate tax fund?
    Some random person from an EU nation?

    So many nice people need support to tell the world about how bad the USA is and what the bad US did to the good "climate" and good "nature"...

  • China is doing far worse but US is the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vandil X ( 636030 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @01:51AM (#59722662)
    These kinds of articles always claim the US is doing so much harm to the world, but countries like China are doing far more planetary harm, but get zero media hoopla about "doing something about it".

    Based article.
    • Firstly the true measure is not tons per countries but tons per capita at minimum (there are better measure with ton, capita and manufactured products but less available) and by that the US is still waaaay ahead. Secondly nobody lampoon the US because they are not steadily pretending global warming is not hapened (the US) or evolution did not happen (the US) or other similar thing. Granted the political system in china is horrible, but because its is horrible , whereas the US with its richness and freedom s

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Misagon ( 1135 )

      The report is not just about global warming, and it is about 2050.

      Global warming lags ~30 years behind carbon emissions. The warming we have had so far is the result of emissions up to 1990s. The warming we will have from now up to ~2050 is the result of emissions from 1990s to now. There is nothing we can do about that. But we can choose to not make it even worse.

      • Global warming lags ~30 years behind carbon emissions. The warming we have had so far is the result of emissions up to 1990s. The warming we will have from now up to ~2050 is the result of emissions from 1990s to now. There is nothing we can do about that. But we can choose to not make it even worse.

        Sure. And the warming from 1850 to 1880 was caused by the emissions from the 1820s. And the warming from 1880 to 1910 was caused by......oh, wait........

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... [woodfortrees.org]

    • Re:China is doing far worse but US is the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by twocows ( 1216842 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @11:08AM (#59723778)
      I think part of it is that people see China as a somewhat lost cause, at least for now. Our efforts there are more concentrated on getting them to be slightly less horrible. I think people think that advocating in the US or Europe etc. may actually produce results.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
      I was in China 6 years ago, the air pollution is as bad as the media portrays it. Beijing skies were orange. Even though it is far more polluted, there are trying to force change.

      In the US, the sentiment from a significant portion of the population and the government seems to be "eh, it's fine". While we have made some strides (when it's profitable) there are other areas where a country of our wealth should not have. Chemicals in the water supply, illegal dumping, single use containers, even our crapp

  • Take that, nature!

  • "2050? I'll be dead by then, why should I give a shit?"

    If you want to fix the ecological problem, increase life expectancy.

  • And yet environmental problem prevention ideas are promoted as business opportunities.

    It's all needless money, just one is forced by nature, the other by government.

  • It's important, but what a stupid argument... (Score:3)

    by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @07:04AM (#59723116) Homepage

    Look, the environment is pretty important. After all, we live in it, we ought to care.

    But this argument? "the global annual GDP could, instead, grow $11 billion by 2050"

    The global economy could grow $11 billion over 30 years, or $300M per year? The global GDP is $80 trillion, so we're talking about a difference of 3/800000. That's not even a rounding error, that is literally nothing.

    Trying to put this stuff into monetary terms is just laughable. I would expect better arguments from a kindergarten kid.

  • Can anyone explain how a few corals 20 feet under the water and 1/2 mile from the coast protect cities from a category 5 hurricane storm surge? I am an avid scuba diver and I love coral reefs but I don't buy one of the first lines in the story.
  • The real cost of the destruction of the environment is not possible to calculate. What is the value of something that you depend on, like clean water and the atmosphere. They are not products.

  • Will obviously deny that claim and put anyone supporting it into jail.

  • Our economy isn't about the future, it's what we can get now and fuck the future

  • Ecosystem services (Score:3)

    by t4eXanadu ( 143668 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @08:42AM (#59723298)

    The fact that we're still talking about the ecosystem as a series of services is part of the problem.

  • By 2050 we will have fixed all this.. (Score:3)

    by Z80a ( 971949 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @09:37AM (#59723466)

    But those fixes will cause a bunch of new problems, maybe even worse than the ones being predicted.

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close