Where Have All The Disasters Gone?

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.

$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
$0.028    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
$0.053    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
$0.003    2017 Minneapolis hailstorm
$0.002    2017 Denver hailstorm
$0.001    2020 Calgary hailstorm
$0.003    June 2012 North American derecho
$0.012    August 2020 Midwest derecho
$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
$0.167    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
$0.020    February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm
$0.010    1993 Storm of the Century
$0.002    2011 Groundhog Day blizzard
$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
$1.89    OVERALL TOTAL ($ 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,


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.

4.9 40 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 14, 2021 10:07 am

Warmists lie. Who’d a thunk it.

Bryan A
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
October 14, 2021 11:39 am

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

Reply to  Bryan A
October 14, 2021 2:50 pm

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.

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
October 14, 2021 12:37 pm

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.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
October 14, 2021 2:11 pm

Yes, the alarmists lie, but it looks like Willis has them in a corner with his data.

Ron Morse
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 14, 2021 5:45 pm

You can’t fight a religion with data. Or money, for that matter. If you could, Islam would have disappeared centuries ago.

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
October 15, 2021 9:59 am

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.

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
October 15, 2021 10:10 am

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?

October 14, 2021 10:08 am

Where? gone to insurance profits despite green poster use of insurance companies facing disaster from climate change. Warren Buffet thanks you.

Alex Cruickshank
October 14, 2021 10:09 am

Nice analysis, Willis.

Rolf H Carlsson
October 14, 2021 10:09 am

Please, also consider all the benefits of increased CO2

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rolf H Carlsson
October 14, 2021 2:12 pm

Yes, we need a cost/benefit analysis.

Reply to  Rolf H Carlsson
October 14, 2021 4:05 pm

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.)

Michael P Graebner
Reply to  SxyxS
October 15, 2021 2:38 pm

Don’t forget about that killer molecule, dihydrogen oxide

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Rolf H Carlsson
October 15, 2021 9:44 am

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.

October 14, 2021 10:13 am


October 14, 2021 10:19 am

Good question, and who is Brandon Galt?

Bryan A
Reply to  Scissor
October 14, 2021 11:40 am

Son of John Galt??

Reply to  Scissor
October 14, 2021 12:12 pm

Let’s go, Brandon.

Reply to  Scissor
October 15, 2021 3:32 am

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.

October 14, 2021 10:21 am

Wishfull thinking !

October 14, 2021 10:25 am

The rest of the social cost must be fees to psychiatrists to treat people that have been frightened by the doom mongers

Reply to  Greg61
October 14, 2021 10:42 am

I know of one angry child who appears to have missed a lot of appointments. HOW DARE YOU!

Reply to  Notanacademic
October 14, 2021 11:22 am

It’s going to take a couple of $Trillion to fix that one. She’s a hard case.

Reply to  H.R.
October 14, 2021 11:31 am

Even that might not be enough. When you said hard did you really mean nut?

October 14, 2021 10:26 am

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.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 14, 2021 1:19 pm

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.

October 14, 2021 10:27 am

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.

Reply to  Doonman
October 14, 2021 10:39 am

300 trillion driving price distortions, diverse phobias, disinformation, dysfunction, and wicked solutions.

His Majesty
Reply to  Doonman
October 14, 2021 10:58 am

So interesting. Brillint! Follow the $$$$!

Reply to  Doonman
October 14, 2021 1:12 pm


You are assuming that if the Governments can get all this “Carbon” tax money, they will actually pay off their debts?

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 14, 2021 2:46 pm

Well sure, that’s what borrowing means, right?

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 14, 2021 9:47 pm

If governments pay off their debt, bankers will have to start giving negative interest on savings.
Oops, they already do that.

Rick K
October 14, 2021 10:33 am

Willis, I love your brain. Any chance of getting it cloned?

steen rasmussen
October 14, 2021 10:34 am

Thanks once again Willis!
… and just think if we havn’t had fossil fuels, we would have missed all the wealth and scientific progress.


October 14, 2021 10:34 am

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.

October 14, 2021 10:44 am

$960 trillion would be the cost of pursuing the anti CO2 economic policies………

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Chris
October 14, 2021 1:23 pm

Poverty, misery, suffering and death would be the cost of pursuing the anti CO2 economic policies. But just for us “little people,” of course.

October 14, 2021 10:45 am

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.

Reply to  Oldseadog
October 14, 2021 11:30 am

eH? Prince Bandar of Maggie’s Al Yamamah deal with BAE, the crowd that did 9/11?

Reply to  bonbon
October 15, 2021 12:11 am

Sorry, bonbon, I don’t understand your comment.

October 14, 2021 10:48 am

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.

Reply to  Scott
October 14, 2021 2:19 pm


October 14, 2021 10:49 am

Are all of your estimates of the quality of that for the February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm?


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….

Last edited 4 days ago by bigoilbob
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 11:02 am

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.

Last edited 4 days ago by Doonman
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 14, 2021 11:17 am

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….

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 14, 2021 12:04 pm

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”.

Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 12:19 pm

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.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 14, 2021 2:04 pm

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.

Reply to  Mr.
October 14, 2021 4:12 pm

Is Stokes masquerading as Bob ?

Reply to  Streetcred
October 14, 2021 4:53 pm

One of them is a clone of the bloke in the middle – Baldrick.

Maybe both?

Reply to  Streetcred
October 14, 2021 7:37 pm

Stokes/Bigoilbob/Griff. What’s the difference?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 2:12 pm

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.

Richard Brimage
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 12:42 pm

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”.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Brimage
October 14, 2021 1:26 pm

Sad that such wisdom seems quaint today.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
October 15, 2021 12:06 am

Today I believe its ” Don’t believe anything you read in the papers”

Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 12:53 pm


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?

Reply to  Meab
October 18, 2021 6:16 am

“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…..

Last edited 13 hours ago by bigoilbob
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 18, 2021 6:59 am

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.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 18, 2021 10:24 am

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…




October 14, 2021 11:09 am

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.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Hans Erren
October 14, 2021 1:28 pm

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.”

October 14, 2021 11:16 am

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

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TallDave
October 14, 2021 2:25 pm

“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.

Clyde Spencer
October 14, 2021 11:22 am

where are the missing $87 trillion dollars in damages purportedly caused by so-called “climate disasters”?

In the mind of the innumerate alarmists! Most of whom are also “instatisticate.”

Robert of Texas
October 14, 2021 11:37 am

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.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
October 14, 2021 12:18 pm

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.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Robert of Texas
October 14, 2021 1:51 pm

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. 😀

Reply to  Robert of Texas
October 15, 2021 2:50 pm

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.

October 14, 2021 11:41 am

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!

Reply to  bonbon
October 14, 2021 4:28 pm

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.

October 14, 2021 11:51 am

Might as well factor in crypto as a disaster also.

Why Crypto Mining Needs Nuclear Power (yahoo.com)

October 14, 2021 11:53 am

And here is yet another category of cost disaster….

$224M Georgia Power rate hike likely for nuclear plant – ABC News (go.com)

Reply to  ResourceGuy
October 14, 2021 12:20 pm

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.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
October 14, 2021 1:54 pm

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.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
October 15, 2021 5:30 am


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.

October 14, 2021 12:11 pm

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.

October 14, 2021 12:12 pm

I would suggest that a fair amount can be figured in damage to the economy. If you calculate all the failed companies that were paid for or bailed out by tax dollars, the increased cost of anything with an engine to cover emissions standards, the inefficiencies of refineries because you can’t build new ones due to environmental policy, etc. etc, you may find the total cost to the economy and drain on wealth will eat up a chunk of that missing $87 trillion.

Peta of Newark
October 14, 2021 12:55 pm

The disaster is there alright – between all of them’s ears

October 14, 2021 1:01 pm

I thought the damages included future damages, and damages included stuff like economically valuing impacts to humans and the environment.
The estimate of SCC is based on estimate upon estimate.
Using Dhaka as an example.
Say – Dhaka has 15m people of which 5m are impacted by flooding.
In 2100 it is estimated that the population of Dhaka to be 45m and their economic wealth doubles, and the area of the city subject to extra flooding doubles.
It would mean the level of impacts or forever suffering grows by a factor of 12. ( it is automatically assumed the extra rich people will move to the flood zones)
It is my understanding that SCC includes all these future exaggerated damages/impacts/sufferings.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Waza
October 14, 2021 1:56 pm

Just including ANY of their “estimated” future “damages” is nonsense, because it is all baseless speculation based on the same “models” that have spectacularly failed to reflect reality for three decades, yet they assume they will suddenly be “right” THIS time.

Rud Istvan
October 14, 2021 1:29 pm

Nice analysis, WE. I just looked up the SCC estimates for US. Under Trump, a maximum of $7. Under Biden, a minimum of $51. Now that’s real Bidenflation.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 14, 2021 1:40 pm

I think any real assessment of the total past, present and future, “impacts” of fossil fuel usage on all humanity and the environment will clearly see that SCC is negative

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Waza
October 14, 2021 2:44 pm

True. But even under Trump, EPA only counted costs, not benefits.
Incredible. Trump could not be everywhere overseeing everything, unfortunately.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 14, 2021 1:59 pm

Why is “Biden” missing from the list of disasters?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Curious George
October 14, 2021 2:30 pm

Probably because Biden is not done wasting taxpayer money on the Green New Deal, so any figure used would only be a partial figure. I guess it could be figured in as “to date” damages.

Last edited 4 days ago by Tom Abbott
October 14, 2021 1:35 pm

What about the Social Benefit of Carbon?

Consider, direct impact on, Life expectancy, infant mortality, health in general, education, and womens rights, for energy exporting countries such as Norway and indirect impacts on everyone else.

Reply to  Waza
October 14, 2021 4:53 pm

We know, for SURE, that the social benefit must be more than people pay for it….or they wouldn’t buy….

Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 14, 2021 5:11 pm

1000 liters of gasoline produces about 2300 Kg of CO2, or just over a ton. Where I live, 1000 liters of gasoline is about $1500, and already includes $30/ton carbon tax. So the social benefit of CO2 to me, must be more than $1500/ton for transportation purposes.

Chris Hanley
October 14, 2021 1:39 pm

… where are the missing $87 trillion dollars in damages purportedly caused by so-called climate disasters …

And one must also offset the costs of climate disasters that did not happen thanks to CO2.
The utter absurdity of this accounting is hurting my brain.

Last edited 4 days ago by Chris Hanley
October 14, 2021 1:44 pm

So basically, they are claiming that everything bad that has happened since 1950 was caused by CO2.

October 14, 2021 1:47 pm

Everything about the claims has its own inflation – it’s continually worse than we thought

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
October 14, 2021 2:04 pm


You’re forgetting the valuation for Greta’s stolen childhood, which I guess accounts for most of that missing $87 trillion. On the other hand, some people think Greta’s childhood is the disaster.

Alastair McIntosh
October 14, 2021 2:15 pm

There is a specific definition of the “Social Cost of Carbon” (SCC). It does not refer to past damages as you have stated:

“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”.”

The SCC refers to future NET damages (costs less benefits) resulting from each additional ton of CO2 emitted. The future damages/bebefits are discounted to net present value using a suitable discount rate.

Of course there is huge uncerainty in the calculations such as the discount rate used, equilibrium climate sensitivity, population growth/decline, etc. The uncertainty is so great that the calculated SCC has little value.

Alastair McIntosh
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 15, 2021 11:35 am

Hello Willis. I believe that the main reason for estimating the current value of future CO2 damages for each additional ton of carbon emitted is to assist in estimating the amount that should be spent on not emitting (or removing) that additional ton. And yes, the SCC changes over time which means the value of avoiding or removing additional units of CO2 changes.

Of course removing future CO2 emissions only gets us to current levels. It seems some form of carbon removal and sequestering will be necessary.

As for costs associated with past emissions, these are sunk costs and don’t affect the costs of future emissions. (ref. sunk cost fallacy).

None of this reflects on my perception of the current state of climate science.


Rud Istvan
Reply to  Alastair McIntosh
October 14, 2021 3:21 pm

Check your net cost/benefit assumption. At EPA, only SCC costs, no benefits. Just double checked.

Alastair McIntosh
Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 15, 2021 10:45 am

I just checked the Congressional Research Service report of June 7, 2021 on the SC of greenhouse gases. The SCC calculation includes reduced heating cost and net changes in agricultural productivity.
Also, the three main Integrated Assesment Models for SCC calculation include both benefits and costs.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
October 14, 2021 2:19 pm

With apologies to Will Rogers:

It’s a good thing we don’t get all the disasters CO2 has caused.

Admiral Nimitz made a similar observation in response to Japanese claims of sinking multiple US carriers:

I wish we had all the carriers the Japanese claim we do!

richard stout
October 14, 2021 2:56 pm

Thanks Willis. I always enjoy your lateral thinking take on “factchecking”. As an engineer involved for many years in electricity supply issues I have frequently had to deal with regulatory questions on the economist’s concept of “social cost of carbon (SCC)”. it seems to me that this number is far too elastic to inform any energy policy or planning.

I have seen proposed SCC estimates ranging from -$50 to +$400. Considering the well documented benefits of a mildly warmer environment and promotion of floral growth, I think it plausible that SCC has a net negative value. In other words by the same logic behind carbon pricing or taxation, we should receive carbon credits for burning fossil fuels 🙂

Last edited 4 days ago by richard stout
William Haas
October 14, 2021 3:00 pm

The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we have been experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So CO2 is not responsible for any environmental disasters. On the other hand CO2 has enabled life as we know it on this planet. That has got to be worth something,

Stephen W
October 14, 2021 3:04 pm

Not to mention the social benefits of emitting CO2…

October 14, 2021 3:09 pm

Chicken Little says that the Sky is Falling and that it will cost us $97 Trillion dollars to fix it up in the Virtual World.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
October 14, 2021 4:43 pm

A suggestion. Let’s use virtual dollars to fix virtual damage. AOC dollars, for example.

October 14, 2021 3:09 pm

All weather related disasters have plummeted since the early 20th century- https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters

October 14, 2021 3:11 pm

Willis, I’ll bet that the fruitcakes pushing unlimited disasters and inflated social cost of carbon never saw you coming! Prozac futures are going through the roof!

Last edited 4 days ago by eyesonu
October 14, 2021 4:21 pm

Only 4 days to go before BBC One screens The Trick and nothing from WUWT.

Phil Jones will be declared a hero after being hounded by climate change deniers for 12 years.

FFS wake up!

October 14, 2021 4:57 pm

Its similar to the fossil fuel subsidy calculation.

In the subsidy studies, the largest “subsidies” are the difference between actual carbon taxes and whatever the study team thought they SHOULD have been, and depreciation of assets.

The largest part of the “cost of carbon” is what they think those disasters SHOULD have cost.

Pat Frank
October 14, 2021 5:09 pm

“but $960 trillion in disasters …”

Should be mi$$ing (97-1) = $96 trillion in disasters.

Another way to put it is that we’re missing (96/97)*100 = 99.0% of the damage purportedly caused by CO2 since 1950.

We know where it’s gone, don’t we. It ran off with Trenberth’s missing heat.

It’s so nice, isn’t it, when a new insight explains data that’s been sitting neglected and lonely in the literature. You’re welcome, Ken.

Stan Coker
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 14, 2021 6:03 pm

I taught undergraduate and graduate statistics for about thirty years. I would tell my students that if you still thought that the human contribution was significant and that CO2 was the enemy then do your part and stop exhaling. Didn’t have any takers but I think some of these alarmist should follow my advice.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 14, 2021 8:41 pm

Ah, thanks, Willis. I misunderstood your point.

Sorry I missed contacting you out Bodega Way back a few months.The Spud Point sea squirts were doing well, though.

Dio Gratia
October 14, 2021 9:00 pm

Even though you probably can’t show the governments pays for much of those disaster costs, ten percent is not to much lower than most charities deliver.

The actually issue should be where does all that carbon tax their citizens pay go?

Seems kind of high prices for indulgences for those exhaling and using energy. Those carbon taxes are likely part of a pyramid scheme.

Poems of our Climate
October 14, 2021 9:46 pm

Thanks WE for all your work.

October 14, 2021 10:14 pm

“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?”

A large error could be in thinking that the only damage from CO2 is disasters. You really need to find out what their definition is.

Matthew Siekierski
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 18, 2021 6:20 am

One could likewise claim that increased CO2 will drive crop yields up, which will force more processing of harvested foods, which costs the processors more, and decreased prices for the foods, which is lost income for the farmers. Add all of that cost into the total. Just ignore any increase in overall profits, but make sure to include extra losses from overproduction.

Reply to  Dean
October 15, 2021 4:11 am

Definition of “social cost of carbon”

Simon Derricutt
October 15, 2021 2:31 am

Willis has some form on this. See https://rosebyanyothernameblog.wordpress.com/2018/12/15/the-social-benefit-of-carbon/ where he works out:
“As Figure 6 shows, the benefit that we get from emitting that additional tonne of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is an increase in goods and services of $4,380 … which dwarfs the assumed social cost of carbon of $40. When we do an actual cost/benefit analysis, the result is almost all benefit.”
(Note- seems the pictures there don’t show, may need to refer to https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/15/the-social-benefit-of-carbon/ to get the pictures.)

Thus even with the !diots claiming that our CO2 emissions have cost us $97T since 1950, we’ve gained around 10 times that from the use of that energy.

From Willis’ calculations above, though, looks like the actual SCC is an order of magnitude less than the EU estimate, so the cost/benefit ratio for using those fossil fuels gets even better. Apart from that, of course, there’s the slight problem that without that cheap energy we couldn’t feed the population we have.

Rob Brook
October 15, 2021 2:40 am

$97 TRILLION dollars since 1950!! What’s the value of the estimated 10% – 15% of increases in C3 crop yields (rice, wheat, potatoes…) over the past half century or so?

Trying to Play Nice
October 15, 2021 5:27 am

Shouldn’t they call it the Socialist Cost of Carbon?

Andy Pattullo
October 15, 2021 7:23 am

Score: $97 trillion for Willis, $1.35 in the hole for the eco loons.

Barnes Moore
October 15, 2021 7:26 am

This may have been pointed out already, but is the $960 Trillion a typo – shouldn’t be $96 trillion?

“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” …

Barnes Moore
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 15, 2021 10:30 am

Got it – thanks. Probably clear to others, just not clear to me!

Tim Crome
October 15, 2021 7:51 am

I think it’s even worse than you imagine!

The Global Social Cost of Carbon: 418 USD/tCO2 according to this website: https://www.downtoearth.org.in/dte-infographics/social_cost_corbon/index.html

There definition is that the Social Cost of Carbon reflects the income that society will lose in the future for each tonne of CO2 emitted. They make some attempt to quantify the benefits and even show that some countries, such as UK, Canada, Russia and Germany, will benefit from releasing CO2.

I believe it’s one of those things which has it’s own positive feedback loop built in!

October 15, 2021 9:53 am

This is known by a Newspeak term as the “Social Cost Of Carbon” making stuff up

Fixed it.

Gordon A. Dressler
October 15, 2021 11:19 am

The suitable, poetic answer to the question that Willis asks in the title of his above article:
“Gone to graveyards, everyone
Oh, when will they ever learn?”

(With a tip of the hat to song writers Pete Singer and Joe Hickerson.)

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
October 15, 2021 11:35 am

Oops . . . my bad: make that song writer Pete Seeger.

Last edited 3 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 15, 2021 5:43 pm

Willis, I say this in all honesty and with greatest respect: you never cease to amaze.

Super kudos to anyone that has, at one time or another, supported themselves as a musician.

October 15, 2021 12:20 pm

Meanwhile we are well past the height of the tropical storm season and there are not tropical storms or even a single “invest” in the Atlantic, Caribbean, or Gulf of Mexico. And it has been very quiet for two weeks. Global ACE is 95% of “normal”.

October 15, 2021 8:31 pm

Their figure may well be wrong, but your argument doesn’t show it is. CO2 lasts for a long time in the atmosphere, so the cost of CO2 released today isn’t born today, it’s born over a very long time into the future.

Anders Valland
October 17, 2021 2:31 am

Interesting analysis, but of course missing the obvious. As you know, the warming from GHG is exactly what has been calculated, although due to other things the measured temperature increase is less than the real one. And it therefore follows that the cost of those natural disasters are as calculated, but due to other things the experienced cost is less than the real cost. I mean, do you really believe that those smartest minds in the world would not know this?

%d bloggers like this: