I read today that the EU is using an estimate of US$68 per tonne of CO2 emissions for the purported cost of the damages done by CO2. This is known by a Newspeak term as the “Social Cost Of Carbon”.
It made me wonder—using this estimate, what is the overall total estimated damage done by humans from emitting CO2?
The answer is $97 TRILLION dollars since 1950.
YIKES! That’s about five times the 2020 US Gross Domestic Product (the value of everything produced in the US during that year).
So I thought I’d take a look at the various largest weather-related disasters. I got the big-disaster data from Wikipedia here and arranged it by type of disaster. All values are in 2020 dollars, that is to say, they’re adjusted for inflation. Here is the result.
| DAMAGE (TRILLIONS) | DISASTER |
| DROUGHTS | |
| $0.116 | 1988–89 North American drought |
| $0.060 | 2012–13 North American drought |
| $0.032 | 1980 United States heat wave |
| $0.003 | 2017 Montana wildfires |
| $0.21 | TOTAL DROUGHTS |
| EUROPEAN WINDSTORMS | |
| $0.028 | Cyclones Lothar and Martin |
| $0.031 | Cyclones Daria, Vivian, and Wiebke |
| $0.013 | Cyclone Kyrill |
| $0.007 | Cyclone Xynthia |
| $0.008 | Cyclone Klaus |
| $0.008 | Cyclone Gudrun |
| $0.009 | Great Storm of 1987 |
| $0.10 | TOTAL EUROPEAN WINDSTORMS |
| FLOODS | |
| $0.053 | 2011 Thailand floods |
| $0.032 | 2020 China floods |
| $0.028 | 2002 European floods |
| $0.031 | Great Flood of 1993 |
| $0.013 | 2016 Louisiana floods |
| $0.012 | June 2008 Midwest floods |
| $0.007 | 2013 Alberta floods |
| $0.003 | 2019 Midwestern U.S. floods |
| $0.18 | TOTAL FLOODS |
| HAILSTORMS | |
| $0.003 | 2017 Minneapolis hailstorm |
| $0.002 | 2017 Denver hailstorm |
| $0.001 | 2020 Calgary hailstorm |
| $0.01 | TOTAL HAILSTORMS |
| SEVERE STORMS | |
| $0.003 | June 2012 North American derecho |
| $0.012 | August 2020 Midwest derecho |
| $0.02 | TOTAL SEVERE STORMS |
| TORNADOES | |
| $0.012 | 2011 Super Outbreak |
| $0.006 | Tornado outbreak sequence of May 2003 |
| $0.003 | 2011 Joplin tornado |
| $0.003 | Tornado outbreak sequence of May 2019 |
| $0.002 | Tornado outbreak of March 6–7, 2017 |
| $0.03 | TOTAL TORNADOES |
| TROPICAL CYCLONES | |
| $0.167 | Hurricane Katrina |
| $0.133 | Hurricane Harvey |
| $0.098 | Hurricane Maria |
| $0.079 | Hurricane Sandy |
| $0.069 | Hurricane Irma |
| $0.050 | Hurricane Ida |
| $0.046 | Hurricane Ike |
| $0.036 | Hurricane Wilma |
| $0.051 | Hurricane Andrew |
| $0.036 | Hurricane Ivan |
| $0.026 | Hurricane Michael |
| $0.019 | Hurricane Laura |
| $0.025 | Hurricane Rita |
| $0.024 | Hurricane Charley |
| $0.016 | Hurricane Matthew |
| $0.017 | Hurricane Irene |
| $0.014 | Cyclone Amphan |
| $0.016 | Cyclone Nargis |
| $0.012 | Typhoon Fitow |
| $0.019 | Typhoon Mireille |
| $0.014 | Hurricane Frances |
| $0.020 | Hurricane Hugo |
| $0.015 | Hurricane Georges |
| $0.013 | Typhoon Songda |
| $0.013 | Tropical Storm Allison |
| $0.010 | Hurricane Gustav |
| $0.011 | Hurricane Jeanne |
| $0.008 | Hurricane Eta |
| $0.008 | Hurricane Sally |
| $0.008 | Typhoon Rammasun |
| $0.010 | Hurricane Floyd |
| $0.008 | Typhoon Morakot |
| $0.010 | Hurricane Mitch |
| $0.009 | Typhoon Prapiroon |
| $0.008 | Hurricane Isabel |
| $0.005 | Hurricane Dorian |
| $0.008 | Typhoon Herb |
| $0.005 | Tropical Storm Imelda |
| $0.008 | Hurricane Opal |
| $0.005 | Typhoon Haiyan |
| $0.006 | Cyclone Gonu |
| $0.005 | Hurricane Manuel |
| $0.004 | Cyclone Yasi |
| $0.006 | Hurricane Iniki |
| $0.007 | Hurricane Gilbert |
| $0.002 | Cyclone Winston |
| $0.002 | Typhoon Bopha |
| $0.002 | Typhoon Ketsana |
| $0.005 | Cyclone Tracy |
| $1.18 | TOTAL TROPICAL CYCLONES |
| WINTER STORMS | |
| $0.020 | February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm |
| $0.010 | 1993 Storm of the Century |
| $0.002 | 2011 Groundhog Day blizzard |
| $0.03 | TOTAL WINTER STORMS |
| WILDFIRES | |
| $0.072 | 2019–20 Australian bushfire season |
| $0.025 | 2018 California wildfires |
| $0.016 | October 2017 Northern California wildfires |
| $0.010 | 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire |
| $0.008 | Black Saturday bushfires |
| $0.002 | Cedar Fire |
| $0.001 | 2016 Great Smoky Mountains wildfires |
| $0.001 | 2011 Slave Lake wildfire |
| $0.14 | TOTAL WILDFIRES |
| $1.89 | OVERALL TOTAL ($ trillion) |
Hmmm … no matter how you slice it, that’s less than two trillion dollars …
Now, to be sure, there must be a variety of smaller disasters that didn’t make the list. So let’s be conservative, and call the disaster total four times that, or $8 trillion dollars.
To check that value, I looked at the EMDAT Disaster Database. It contains no less than 11,654 detailed records of flood, wildfire, drought, storm, and extreme temperature disasters since 1950. The smallest of these had damages of $4.6 million dollars ($0.0000046 trillion). So it’s catching even very small disasters.
In 2020 dollars, the EMDAT database says that the total cost of those disasters since 1950 is about $10 trillion dollars.
So let us make the obviously incorrect and untenable assumption that 100% of those disaster costs are ascribable to the evil influence of CO2. It’s obviously not true by an order of magnitude or more, but let’s assume that each and every disaster is all 100% from CO2 for the purposes of discussion.
And given even that incorrect and wildly exaggerated assumption, the obvious question is … where is the other $87 trillion dollars of purported CO2 damages from weather-related disasters since 1950?
And it gets much worse if we don’t assume that 100% of the responsibility is due to CO2. Suppose we say (still an exaggeration) that 10% of the responsibility comes from CO2. That would mean that we are missing, not $87 trillion in disasters, but $960 trillion in disasters …
(Let me say that this kind of error, of just picking a random goal like “Net-Zero 2050” or just calculating a value for something like the “Social Cost of Carbon” and not testing the result for reasonableness against real-world data, is far too common in the world of climate “science”. I discuss this issue about “Net-Zero 2050” in my post “Bright Green Impossibilities“.)
And to repeat … where are the missing $87 trillion dollars in damages purportedly caused by so-called “climate disasters”?
My best to all,
w.
AS ALWAYS: I ask that when you comment you quote the exact words you are discussing. I can defend my own words. I cannot defend your interpretation of my words. Thanks.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Warmists lie. Who’d a thunk it.
The missing Trillion$ in disasters exist as calculated in the virtual world of Klimate Models. They must exist in the virtual modeled world because Virtually no one has seen them
Well, my guess is that it represents all the subsidy profits that the GangGreen Ruinable Energy geniuses might have accrued if we had gone zero carbon in 1950.
Or perhaps 1850.
After all, that’s when humankind had that naughty Industrial Revolution thing. (More accurately 1750, but hey! What’s a hundred years?)
I’m sure if we all pay what they say we owe, they’ll be nice about it.
For six months or so.
In this case they almost told the truth.
You know how much a dollar will lose in value after communism takes over?
In case you don’t : Average monthly income in Cuba = 30 dollars.
Once you adjust the commie dollar in terms of inflation you will see :
2 trillion real dollars = 97 trillion commie dollars.
(that’s why Newsomes universal basic income of 1000dollars means nothing once the party is over.They will never ever peg those 1000 dollars to real values : Gold, Silver,Meat
and in the end the real value of those 1000dollars will be 30 bucks)
And 97 is the number of truth in communism.
It is the percentage of consensus and also the average percentage of votes commie parties officially get in their countries in the elections.
Yes, the alarmists lie, but it looks like Willis has them in a corner with his data.
You can’t fight a religion with data. Or money, for that matter. If you could, Islam would have disappeared centuries ago.
They lie and they make stuff up. Fantasy is much for fun than reality for Leftists; although their fantasy is a dystopian nightmare so who would want to believe it? Critical-thinking-challenged automatons, submissive why-can’t-we-all-get-along sheep, and of course other Leftists with autocratic fantasies of compelling other people to do their bidding, that’s who.
The warmunists count the “emotional (mental pain and suffering) cost of global warming” as the other 95% of the costs of CO2.
See how that trick works?
Just like the leftwingnuts claim their massive $5.5 trillion dollar tax giveaway is actually “social infrastructure” and needs to be funded just like actual infrastructure, except that it’s actually five times as costly.
Just call anything you want anything you want and suddenly it’s justified. Why didn’t I think of that?
Where? gone to insurance profits despite green poster use of insurance companies facing disaster from climate change. Warren Buffet thanks you.
Nice analysis, Willis.
Please, also consider all the benefits of increased CO2
Yes, we need a cost/benefit analysis.
Co2 is always evil – at least the man made.
Since Co2 became victim of the critical molecule theory (CRT on a molecular basis)some times in the 80ies
positive Co2 coverage is forbidden.
That’ s why the basic life molecule officially became a pollutant (which is so scientific that one can only have the deepest respect for climate scientists lead by idols like Al Gore , Obama and the only Zombie actor in history who can not read his TelePrompTer script – Joe B.)
Don’t forget about that killer molecule, dihydrogen oxide
Actually, I believe Willis performed this exercise here some while back. Based on world GDP, I think it came out to something like $5,000+ per ton of CO2.
Derivatives?
Good question, and who is Brandon Galt?
Son of John Galt??
Let’s go, Brandon.
Let’s go Brandon will go down as the greatest meme ever. Sadly, Kamala will not be better but they will do their damnest to Keep weekends at Joe’s going.
Wishfull thinking !
The rest of the social cost must be fees to psychiatrists to treat people that have been frightened by the doom mongers
I know of one angry child who appears to have missed a lot of appointments. HOW DARE YOU!
It’s going to take a couple of $Trillion to fix that one. She’s a hard case.
Even that might not be enough. When you said hard did you really mean nut?
And to make the claim even worse, changing the discount rate in “Social Cost of Carbon” calculations to something more plausible changes the “costs” into benefits.
Without actually considering the actual benefits. Which are massive and would swamp even imaginary harms not being properly discounted.
The question one needs to continually be injected into the debate is “How would you like to be freezing to death and starving to death in the dark?” which is exactly where we would all be given a 21st Century skill set and no fossil fuels.
Reuters reports that world debt is fast approaching 300 trillion dollars. That’s 300 trillion spent that does not actually exist in the world economy.
So, world governments need to sell you carbon to recoup what they already borrowed and spent. There is no other raw material available in such quantity that they could sell you to pay their bills, except oxygen. But that’s considered tacky, so carbon will have to do.
300 trillion driving price distortions, diverse phobias, disinformation, dysfunction, and wicked solutions.
So interesting. Brillint! Follow the $$$$!
Doonman,
You are assuming that if the Governments can get all this “Carbon” tax money, they will actually pay off their debts?
Well sure, that’s what borrowing means, right?
If governments pay off their debt, bankers will have to start giving negative interest on savings.
Oops, they already do that.
Willis, I love your brain. Any chance of getting it cloned?
Thanks once again Willis!
… and just think if we havn’t had fossil fuels, we would have missed all the wealth and scientific progress.
SteenR
Good analysis. More of this needs to be done and people made aware. We’ve allowed the MSM to invent the AGW narrative, perpetuate it, and grow it without questioning them. It’s time people start doing something about the lies instead of ignoring them.
$960 trillion would be the cost of pursuing the anti CO2 economic policies………
Poverty, misery, suffering and death would be the cost of pursuing the anti CO2 economic policies. But just for us “little people,” of course.
Willis, you didn’t count all the CO2 emitted by the IPCC during their deliberations, both that produced during their meetings and that produced indirectly by their use of fossil fueled electricity to power all their electronic stuff. I think all that CO2 should be classed as disaster-producing CO2.
It is all just stuff from the Bandar-log who are becoming increasingly shrill.
Good to hear from you as always, seadog … and a Kipling reference? Most stylish.
Best to you and the family,
w.
eH? Prince Bandar of Maggie’s Al Yamamah deal with BAE, the crowd that did 9/11?
Sorry, bonbon, I don’t understand your comment.
Any idea what the costs of these type of events from 1880 to 1950 would come to? Would have to factor in inflation. I much prefer the begin climate we are enjoying now over that of the 1920’s and 1930’s. There were also some extreme heatwaves/weather events prior to 1920.
benign?
Are all of your estimates of the quality of that for the February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm?
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2021/03/08/the-texas-winter-freezes-economic-toll-climbs-to-130-billion/
Yes, I am aware that even taking 6.5* you total still leaves us low. And that this might just be an oversight. One of the tenets here is, Don’t necessarily trust wiki….
Thanks for pointing out that Wikipedia data is highly suspect. I don’t know why you call that data Willis’, since he sourced it in the article.
I’m sure you will now do your civic duty and update Wikipedia immediately since you have already taken the time to do the research and it post it here.
Bob, specifically because I DON’T trust Wiki, you’ll notice that I used the EMDAT data. I just found the Wiki data interesting, and it’s much more accesible to my usual reader.
FYI, the EMDAT database puts the cost of the Texas freeze at $20.4 billion … to quote you, “Are all of your estimates of the quality of that for the February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm?”
How about you dial back on the aggro and ask questions instead of making accusations?
In friendship,
w.
“Bob, specifically because I DON’T trust Wiki, you’ll notice that I used the EMDAT data.”
Your first reference was to wiki, and it is the only one in your article that enumerates per disaster. I evaluated one of the disasters and found this error. I never said that you didn’t use the EMDAT values, but can you suss out the $ values for any of them.?
“How about you dial back on the aggro and ask questions instead of making accusations?”
My “accusation” is that you posted unvetted wiki values, and an aggregate from another source that can’t be sampled and verified. No “aggro” here. Just those facts….
Bob, you say:
As to “unvetted”, the Wiki value is clearly referenced to the NOAA page on “Billion-Dollar Weather And Climate Disasters”. The fact that you can’t be bothered to look up their reference is not my problem. Is NOAA correct? Go ask NOAA.
And on what planet is the EMDAT data unable to be “sampled and verified”? I’ve given you the link. If you are unable to use it, don’t blame me.
Finally, as to “aggregate data”, did you really expect me to enumerate all eleven thousand plus disasters? Really?
Regards,
w.
“As to “unvetted”, the Wiki value is clearly referenced to the NOAA page on “Billion-Dollar Weather And Climate Disasters”.”
I sampled the one datum knew about, and the total was ~15% of actual.
” The fact that you can’t be bothered to look up their reference is not my problem. Is NOAA correct?”
They sure struck out on my random check.
“And on what planet is the EMDAT data unable to be “sampled and verified”? I’ve given you the link. If you are unable to use it, don’t blame me”
Apparently you can’t either. If you could, you would have quickly produced their estimate of the Feb disaster costs. I tried, but was unable to “register” because I was not one of the groups eligible. I suspect you didn’t even do as much as I.
“Finally, as to “aggregate data”, did you really expect me to enumerate all eleven thousand plus disasters? Really?”
No. I expect you check out a tiny sample, since I have already refreshed you on what you probably already knew. That $20B for the Feb disaster was (1) documentably a small fraction of actual, and that (2) the actual was widely known.
The good news for you. You don’t really have to do minimal due diligence. These fawners are “Ready to believe you”.
Well, its been an hour and a half, I just checked and you haven’t updated Wikipedia with the correct value you researched from Dallas News.
With such outstanding differences, I’m guessing your civic duty to inform the masses to prevent “fawning” is limited to repeatedly posting here, which I find highly suspect from a data quality point of view, which by the way, you brought up.
Bob, you say:
Nope. NOAA’s claim was ~15% of what a newspaper called the “Dallas News” claims. You’re free to believe them. You’re not free to insult me for believing NOAA.
I DID produce their estimate of the Feb disaster costs. See above. The fact that you were unable to register is merely a measure of your own incompetence. I was able to register easily, took me all of a couple minutes.
And as to you calling me a liar by saying “apparently I can’t [use the EMDAT data] either”, and that I “didn’t even do as much as you”, you can stuff that nastiness where the solar constant is zero. I don’t have any truck with people who call me a liar. Talk to the hand, ’cause the head ain’t listening.
You’ve burned your bridges on this one with me, BigBlusterBob. Go whine at someone else about your pathetic meaningless concerns. Not interested.
w.
PS—Whether we use your figure or mine makes NO DIFFERENCE to any of the issues or conclusions I raised above. The difference is 0.14 trillion, lost in the noise.
Willis, you know what BoB is doing here – using the Stokes playbook to nitpick one line item of a presentation and try to use that as a diversion tactic from the main thrust of a concerning observation.
It’s just so obvious and puerile.
Is Stokes masquerading as Bob ?
https://youtu.be/G1QywDPkDjg
One of them is a clone of the bloke in the middle – Baldrick.
Maybe both?
Stokes/Bigoilbob/Griff. What’s the difference?
Ya see BOB, when the estimates from Wiki, which can be relied on to overestimate damages, add up to only 2% of the Clime Syndicate’s calculations, one has made his point in spades. This is why Willis, Monckton, and others, who regularly falsify climateering offerings, most often use their opponents own data. This removes arguments about choice of data set and forces examination of the actual takedown.
Don’t get caught up in the foolishness of calculating to 4 decimal places what is nonsense anyway like 97% Gang does. e.g. the hottest July ever by 0.0013°C.
The first newspaper I started reading as a young avid reader was the Dallas newspaper in the mid 50’s. I remember relating something to my dad one day that I read in the paper. His reply was short and succinct, “Don’t believe everything you read in the paper”.
Sad that such wisdom seems quaint today.
Today I believe its ” Don’t believe anything you read in the papers”
Bigoilyboob,
If you were really trying to see if Willis is correct you would have checked the references behind the putative social cost of carbon but you didn’t. You would have seen dubious references, inflated costs of sea level rise from phony projections, and other claimed ill effects from CO2 that simply are not happening.
You obviously have a hidden agenda. What is it, selling windmills?
“If you were really trying to see if Willis is correct…”
I was not. WE’s opines are properly inconsequential, above ground.
All I did was to compare the actual v claimed costs for what might have been the most notable 2021 US climate disaster. A check that it seems to me like anyone as aware as WE claims to be, would have done instinctively. When I saw how far off he was, and how he did not provide any means to cross check the wiki values with EMDAT values, I recommended doing so, with a tiny sample of disaster. I.e., nominal due diligence.
But instead, Mr. Eschenbach chose to lie about cross checking any of his values with the EMDAT data base he claimed to be able to drill down into. If he had actually done so, he would have told us all how to do so if he had, in fact, done so himself. This is characteristic of Mr. Eschenbach’s reaction to data based objections to his claims.
Separately folks, the comparisons to Nick Stokes are flattering, but incorrect. His posts are much better written, feature much more sophisticated data evaluations, are more effective at pricking the not air balloons floated from the posts he responded to, and are even more effectuated by his admirable civility.
Anyone, Anyone, please provide the method of registering into the EMDAT data base that WE claims to have used successfully. WE, feel free to do so yourself. Otherwise, your bogus claim to have done so yourself does not pass the smell test. Well, maybe here…..
Good news, bad news update. Unlike last week, EMDAT allowed for me to register.
The bad news (for WE). The listed cost of the 2/21 Texas Okla weather disaster was also for ~$20B. Yes, the same as wiki. Yes, both about 15% of actual.
They DID get the # of dead qualitatively correct, at 172.
bigoilbob October 18, 2021 6:59 am
Oh, this is hilarious. It’s now EMDAT’s fault that you were too stupid to register last time.
EMDAT agreed with NOAA, disagreed with your claimed value, and somehow that is “bad news” for me? Say what? That’s bad news for you.
And “15% of actual”? Let me fix that for you. What you are trying to say is “15% of some newspaper’s inflated claims”.
w.
bigoilbob said
You did nothing of the sort. You compared NOAA data with some newspaper’s inflated claims. That’s not “actual vs. claimed” costs on any planet.
You say “He did not provide any means to cross check the wiki values with EMDAT values”??? I gave you the EMDAT link. The fact that you are too dense to be able to register for and use the data is not my fault.
Listen, you slimy little worm. I was brought up to be scrupulously honest. I don’t lie about things. You must be either thinking of your friends or looking in the mirror. I gave you the link to the EMDAT data. I am under no obligation to hold your hand and show you how to use a simple database.
I cross-checked the Wiki data with the EMDAT data as you suggested. The EMDAT lists about 10X the total damages as Wiki, which I reported. I also pointed out why—one is a list of biggest disasters only, the other (EMDAT) list far more disasters.
And once you asked about it and gave the inflated newspaper value, I also checked EMDAT for that. It gave about the same value as did NOAA for the spring Texas freeze.
And?
w.
“And once you asked about it and gave the inflated newspaper value, I also checked EMDAT for that. It gave about the same value as did NOAA for the spring Texas freeze.”
Just my point. They both used immediate, insured values, and not total estimates. Bigger pic, AGAIN, you skate over what I am saying about minimal due diligence. I checked the most widely known US 2021 weather disaster, and it was wrongly evaluated. By far. But I’m batting 1000. You, zilch. All I’m aksing for you to do is to check a few more, doing a better job this time. Maybe you can even “cool the aggro” with the mid school name calling.
As for “inflated” apparently your number is the deflated outlier. We even know why…
https://www.accuweather.com/en/winter-weather/damages-from-feb-snowstorms-could-be-as-high-as-155b/909620
https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2021/0415.aspx
https://dallas.culturemap.com/news/city-life/03-29-21-winter-storm-damage-no-power-texas-university-of-houston/
Cyclone used to be a synonym of hurricane and typhoon.
Cyclones Lothar and Martin,; Cyclones Daria, Vivian, and Wiebke; Cyclone Kyrill; Cyclone Xynthia; Cyclone Klaus and Cyclone Gudrun are just depression systems which the DWD decided to give names to make them scarier.
Headline: We ran out of “names” for “named storms” – AGAIN!
Missing subtext: We name everything but strong breezes these days, as compared with the past when something had to actually be a significant storm to “rate” being given a “name.”
much worse than that
social cost of carbon varies over time but is generally firmly in the negative (i.e. externality benefits outweigh externality costs, an anti-pollutant or “triumph of the commons” if you will)
ag greening alone has contributed trillions to human prosperity
reversing the 1940s-1970s cooling was even more valuable
future costs are based on speculative models that cannot reproduce the post-1979 satellite tropospheric warming of .2 degrees per decade, which may continue to be linear through 2100 for all anyone really knows
“reversing the 1940s-1970s cooling was even more valuable”
Assuming that’s what happened.
I’m not assuming that. I see no evidence for it. Just because it warms for a period of time after the 1970’s, does not mean CO2 had anything to do with the warming. It’s an assumption only. No evidence.
In the mind of the innumerate alarmists! Most of whom are also “instatisticate.”
To actually get a valid result one would need to add in all the benefit costs as well. To assume that there are no benefits is preposterous. So, not only is the estimate 10x too high and not all can be attributed to CO2,, they left out the positive piece of the equation. Typical liberal math – it’s why they can’t pass a math test in high school.
More likely, it’s why they dumbed down the high school math, to limit the number of people with the ability to call them on it.
Staten Island has long been the doormat of the City of New York.
During his second campaign to inflict another four years of damage on NYC, David Dinkins, the worst mayor NYC ever had (though de Blasio is trying to give him a run for his money), and whose contempt for Staten Island (since he figured its population too small to care about) was palpable, called the Staten Island Ferry “The most heavily subsidized mass transit in the city.” In his calculation of the amount of “subsidy” he included as related “revenue” only the $0.50 round trip fare. Omitted from the calculation were advertising revenues on the boats and in the terminals, concession revenues on the boats and in the terminals, and parking revenues from lots at the Ferry Terminal in St. George on Staten Island. Those were all made part of the “general fund.”
In his calculation of the subsidy for buses which ran from the outer boroughs of “the city” he cared about (aka “other than Staten Island”), he included the advertising revenues on the buses.
Native “Islanders” called this the “Dinkins Math.”
Just an example of the effect of which you speak.
P.S. “Islanders” overwhelmingly voted for Rudolph Giuliani, and accounted for his margin of victory in the subsequent election. 😀
Robert of Texas,
Judge William Alsup did the balancing exercise you speak of in Cal v. BP and others.
He found that the social benefits of carbon exceeded the social cost of carbon since the Industrial Revolution ( 1850 or 1750, take your pick) by a factor of plenty.
Which is why the action of San Francisco and Oakland against the Oil Companies failed.
But the alarmists will be back notwithstanding that the “law fare” cases are running 25-0 against them in Superior Courts in the US.
Money demands serious financial research.
So. let’s see what UN Climate Finance Czar Mark Carney, no mere Excel pleb, ex Bank of England chief, says in an Oct. 12 interview :
It will require between $100 and $150 TRILLION to be spent over 30 years in new “green” technology. To do this, he said, requires a change in financial “plumbing”. He is demanding a “Reset” that will give private banks and financial institutions control over the credit policies of nations; further, the move in this direction is already driving up energy prices, by cutting credit to producers, and pouring liquidity into speculators. As stated in the Economist, the mouthpiece for the City of London, “Get used to it.” But Carney admitted there is resistance, citing China, Indonesia and South Africa as three who will fight it.
BlackRock is fully onboard. In other words, no credit for any carbon firm, hence the current hyperinflation.
Suck it up! Or take serious physical economic action and join in the BRI. Choose!
Carney believes that technical achievement is based on economics allowing enabling of STEM….it hasn’t really occurred to him STEM technical acievement enables economics because he has no core competency in a real fact based science.
Might as well factor in crypto as a disaster also.
Why Crypto Mining Needs Nuclear Power (yahoo.com)
And here is yet another category of cost disaster….
$224M Georgia Power rate hike likely for nuclear plant – ABC News (go.com)
I would hazard a guess that ALL of the cost overruns on any nuclear project are directly attributed to the cost of “law-fare” exercised by Gang Green attempting to hinder or even kill the project.
Not all of it; there was a good bit of project mismanagement. Some of that in turn can be blamed on lack of recent nuclear plant construction experience. Most of the civil engineers with nuclear experience in the US have either retired or died.
Alan,
I would agree with that mismanagement statement.
Another problem they ran into is many of the welders, electricians and other site laborers failed random drug screenings and that would trigger site-wide shutdowns while they hired and trained new workers. The delays from that alone were terrible. Still had to pay the others or lose them to other projects. Good welders and electricians do not have a lack of options for employment. This I lay at the feet of a society that does not value sobriety.
Another problem is getting people to work on a “nuclear” plant in the first place. Too many people hear the word “nuclear” (scare quotes and all) and think Hiroshima or Chernobyl. They don’t realize that installing the fissile material (aka fuel) is the last thing done on a reactor. Before that it is just more steel, concrete, pipes and wires in one place than most of us have ever seen. Building a reactor is like building a bridge, but with way tighter specifications. The dangers are like any other construction job – falls, drops, burns and shocks, and prevented with the same techniques.
I have made that error before… I do an energy audit of a building and/or a campus or installation, I pick some likely Energy Conservation Measures (ECM) based on the equipment currently installed, and then I do a life-cycle cost analysis of supposed savings vs. the cost of the improvement. I even went so far as publishing a report, and sending it to the client, that indicated the annual savings for an ECM was going to be about 5 times what he had actually spent on energy for that item in the previous year. That’s quite embarrassing, and it radically lowers the impact of your report, not just for that particular ECM, but for every other ECM and the entire report. 🙁 The only thing that could have made it worse was if I had tried to claim he didn’t have as much intelligence as me and was taking that number out of context. I did not try that.