Quick Thread. The inefficient, odd Green New Deal, GDP growth and you. Let's begin... Climate change environmentalists often come bearing a Green New Deal. The bundle presents itself most authoritatively in The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Models struggle to come up with economic costs commensurate with apocalyptic political rhetoric. Typical costs are well below 10% of GDP in the year 2100+. Calcs of climate change damage in a working paper: Climate Change: Replication, Survey Methods, and a Statistical Analysis:

“….the estimated impact is -2.04 (± 2.21) % of income at 3 °C warming and -8.06 (± 2.43) % of income at 6 °C warming....likelihood of thresholds or sharp convexities..found no evidence from the damage estimates of a sharp discontinuity or high convexity.” http://papers.nber.org/papers/w23646 

10% less GDP in 100 years corresponds to 0.1% less annual GDP growth. Climate change does not justify policies that cost more than 0.1% of growth. If the goal is 10% more GDP in 100 years, pro-growth tax, regulatory and entitlement reforms are more effective.

Yes, the costs are not evenly spread. Some places will do better and some will do worse. The American South might be a worse place to grow wheat; Southern Canada might be a better one.
Spread over a century, the costs of moving and adapting are not imposing

Dikes are NOT prohibitively costly.

Buildings are rebuilt +/- every 50 years = STOP building in flood-prone areas and START building on higher ground.

Costs of moving cities is bearable.

Migration is costly, but in the 20th century world’s pop moved from farms to cities

Healthy societies do not fall apart over slow, predicted, relatively small economic adjustments of the sort painted by climate analysis. Societies do fall apart from war, disease or chaos. Climate policy must compete with other long-term threats for always-scarce resources

Green'd peeps insist on “insurance.” arguing projected costs could turn out worse. But same argument applies to any possible risk. nuke war, crop failure or pandemics.
You can sensibly only insure when premium is in line with risk.
(following is EIA data)
https://bit.ly/2OVt5NJ 

Chart 1: Anger at Co2 dispensaries neglect China: (Data from EIA)
Chart 2: “Asia and Oceania” vs. “North America”
Chart 3: Just why have China’s carbon emissions risen so much in the last decade?
Chart 4: China has been building about one coal fired power plant a week.

China uses half again more energy than the US, to produce $13.6 trillion vs. $20.5 trillion of GDP. That energy is strikingly weighted to coal (90 vs. 14 QBTU). A comprehensive analysis is here Mapped: The world’s coal power plants https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants

A Green New Deal. But for who?
Bank of England governor, Mark Carney has taken the lead demanding a “commitment of all actors…” and that “climate action bolsters economic growth.” Policies wholeheartedly nostrum’d by Bernie Sanders, AOC and adherents of such things.

Investing in a technology that produces the same thing more expensively does not help long-run growth. It may help the environment, but it does not help growth.

/end?
nope! This is my neighbors dog, i take so many pics of him that its become a movie, enjoy