this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023

233 points (98.3% liked)

News

38782 readers

2733 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

233

Climate crisis costing $16m an hour in extreme weather damage, study estimates (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Analysis shows at least $2.8tn in damage from 2000 to 2019 through worsened storms, floods and heatwaves

The damage caused by the climate crisis through extreme weather has cost $16m (£13m) an hour for the past 20 years, according to a new estimate.

Storms, floods, heatwaves and droughts have taken many lives and destroyed swathes of property in recent decades, with global heating making the events more frequent and intense. The study is the first to calculate a global figure for the increased costs directly attributable to human-caused global heating.

It found average costs of $140bn (£115bn) a year from 2000 to 2019, although the figure varies significantly from year to year. The latest data shows $280bn in costs in 2022. The researchers said lack of data, particularly in low-income countries, meant the figures were likely to be seriously underestimated. Additional climate costs, such as from crop yield declines and sea level rise, were also not included.

all 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If you’re too lazy to calculate: that’s $140.16B per year (so far).

[–] dingleberry@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 2 years ago

So a fraction of oil profits, i.e. the (socialized) cost of doing business.

[–] HurlingDurling@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago

Send the bill to the corporations and billionares

[–] Taniwha420@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Not the point of the post, but I was part of evacuating a camp that burned in that fire pictured above. All the infrastructure is just toast. It's all gone. We were sitting underneath the huge plume of smoke. We had to evacuate North through Vernon and it was crazy coming back South into Kelowna in the night and seeing the extent of the flames across the lake.

[–] Veraxus@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

~~That is $5,8 billion per year.~~

I misread $16m per day. It's $16m per HOUR. $140.2 billion/year.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If there was only one hour in a day, yes. Multiply by 24 because there are 24 hours in a day. $140 billion per year.

[–] Veraxus@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

You're right. I read $16m per day and grossly miscalculated. It's even worse.

[–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

The math does not check out

[+] ElectroCutie@lemmy.world -24 points 2 years ago (5 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 years ago

Fuck all the way off with your climate change denial.

[–] Captainvaqina@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 years ago

Reality does not align with your fantasies.

[–] CyberCatBytes@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I was about to think all those scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying climate change might be right, but luckily some random person online with no education on it or sources for their claim was here to say there's no climate crisis

What a relief fr

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

We do have approximate world temperatures for a long time. If you look at the last 2000 years, we are currently experiencing a massive spike in temperatures and it does align quite well with the industrial revolution where we really started to pump out nasty amounts of CO2.

If you look at the charts for as far back as 11,000 years ago, it does look grim: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/were-screwed-11-000-years-worth-of-climate-data-prove-it/273870/

However, if you look back at the last 500 million years, we are actually in a cold-snap: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

Just looking at those two points is extremely confusing for some people. My points of view on this are:

Climate change is and always has been a thing. It can change quite rapidly or quite slowly. It can be impacted by biology or other natural phenomenon.
The earth will absolutely survive huge swings in climate changes and has done so for millions of years. We, as humans, probably won't though. However, we are generally intelligent when it comes to survival, so we have that going for us.
What some people don't realize is that we are changing the world temperatures at an accelerated pace with no plan to mitigate it. The biology of the past has poisoned other life with excessive oxygen and also excessive CO2. Lots of things died and some things evolved. We are just doing the same thing on a much grander scale with more exotic ways to generate waste gasses.
We don't really have any large CO2 sinks right now. Contrary to what some say, planting more trees won't slow things down. While plants love CO2, anyone that has ran a greenhouse or grow tent with supplemental CO2 will tell you that it can be tricky to manage excess humidity while also keeping temperatures down. Higher temperatures are probably going to kill off a fuck ton of plant life, so there is that.

Charts are confusing and we need better ways to present data other than "average world temperatures over the last x years". They simply do not tell the full story.

Additionally, people fail to realize the difference between seasonal weather and average climate. Unfortunately, people with good intentions also mix the two up. Also, It's super easy to think "this year" has had the worst weather. Humans have really bad memories and do not hold detailed data points very well. One good year followed by one bad year just feeds extreme opinions and it's seriously annoying.

Contrary to what some say, climate is changing. It always has and always will. Our tolerance as humans is quite good, actually. However, when you look at the big picture, we live in an extremely narrow band of survivability in our own atmosphere and fucking that up is very much possible.

Failure to understand data is why climate change deniers exist.

[–] Dragster39@feddit.de 1 points 2 years ago

Your 11,000 and 500 million year charts show an important thing. You can absolutely put a bias on everything if just showing the window of data fitting to ones opinion and adding a fitting range on the y axis can change the message quite a bit.

[–] bandario@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago

I work in land management and forest firefighting and you can literally come die in a fire.

I was already fighting wildfires in winter this year. Haven't had any meaningful rain in over 160 days. We're so utterly fucked.

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I hope you live long enough to see how wrong you are.