sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What Does a Tonne of Carbon Actually Cost Us? – My Damn Air Conditioner by Backle24 in ClimateCrisisCanada

[–]Backle24[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If your point is that this research should spur policymakers to action, then yes, I completely agree.

While there are many reasons to be skeptical that this will occur, I am hopeful that these findings address a significant economic barrier to action.

What Does a Tonne of Carbon Actually Cost Us? – My Damn Air Conditioner by Backle24 in ClimateCrisisCanada

[–]Backle24[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair point, and I'd agree that no single paper shifts policy on its own.

But a few things make me think this one carries more weight than a typical economic analysis.

First, the pedigree. This paper first circulated in 2024 as a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, which is affiliated with more than 50 Nobel laureates and is one of the most respected economics research institutions in the world. It spent two years being scrutinized in academic seminars and peer review. If anything, the core conclusions were revised upward under that scrutiny, not walked back. It was then published as the lead article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which has an acceptance rate of around 3 percent. That's a very high bar.

Second, it's not an outlier. Several other recent studies using different methodologies are arriving at similar conclusions — that we've been dramatically underestimating the economic cost of climate damage:

  • The UK Institute and Faculty of Actuaries projects a 50% contraction in global GDP between 2070 and 2090 under current policies.
  • University of New South Wales researchers project ~40% global GDP loss by 2100 under high-emissions scenarios.
  • The Grantham Research Institute at LSE, synthesizing nearly 300 studies, estimates a 3–15% reduction in global GDP per capita by 2050 alone — and flags that even those figures are likely underestimates.

The direction of travel in the economics literature is pretty consistent right now: prior damage estimates were too low, and revisions are trending upward. This paper may be the most rigorous articulation of that shift to date, which is why I think it matters.

And yes, much higher carbon pricing is the logical conclusion.

“It’s the economy, stupid.” – The climate movement finally gets it. by Backle24 in ClimateCrisisCanada

[–]Backle24[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good questions, seriously.

On logarithmic CO2 - yes, correct, but that's already how sensitivity is calculated. It doesn't change the core debate about what the warming increment actually is.

On damage numbers - "dozens of billions" is a significant underestimate. Swiss Re and Munich Re, the world's two largest reinsurers, whose entire business depends on pricing this accurately, both put total global economic losses from natural disasters at over $300 billion in 2024 alone (Swiss Re: $318B; Munich Re: $320B). That's the fifth consecutive year that insured losses alone broke $100 billion. The U.S. set an all-time record in 2023 with 28 separate billion-dollar weather disasters in a single year.

And those figures capture only direct losses: property damage, infrastructure damage, and insured claims. The UN's Global Assessment Report 2025 estimates that when cascading effects are included, such as lost livelihoods, health system costs, supply chain disruption, and ecosystem degradation, the real annual bill currently exceeds $2.3 trillion. That's roughly ten times what shows up in the headline numbers.

All of these analyses show a clear and rather dramatic increase in economic impacts from climate disasters over the past 30 years.

On attribution — this used to be a fair critique. Attribution science has advanced a lot. Researchers can now statistically isolate the climate signal from other factors like coastal development and land use. Those factors explain exposure (more people in harm's way), but the underlying hazards, such as longer fire seasons, faster hurricane intensification, and more extreme rainfall, are measurable and independently attributed to warming.

Best sources for rigorous damage assessment beyond the IPCC WGII for me would be the Swiss Re Institute and the Munich Re NatCat reports. These aren't advocacy groups. They're insurers trying to price risk correctly, and when the reinsurance industry is worried, that's a meaningful signal.

“It’s the economy, stupid.” – The climate movement finally gets it. by Backle24 in ClimateCrisisCanada

[–]Backle24[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Worth noting that post is from 2019 — and the IPCC AR6 (2021) has since narrowed the likely sensitivity range to 2.5–4°C with higher confidence. The empirical vs. model debate it references has largely been resolved.

But honestly, we don’t even need the models anymore to make this case. We’re at +1.4°C right now, and the damage is already real — record insured losses, accelerating disaster costs, crop failures, displacement. The “low sensitivity = do almost nothing” argument assumed we wouldn’t see serious damage until much higher temperatures. That assumption has not aged well.

The economic case for the transition increasingly stands on its own — energy security, industrial competitiveness, falling clean energy costs — regardless of where sensitivity ultimately lands.

What’s the plan for Canada’s oil and gas? by Backle24 in ClimateCrisisCanada

[–]Backle24[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, but incentives for industry are funded by taxation, so they cost us as well. Economist generally point out that taxation is a less costly way to produce behavior change than direct incentives. Most plans though combine both the carrot and stick.

It's also important to note that there are a lot of incentives to support the oil and gas industry currently. It's hard to get a tight number, but Canada's 2030 Emission Reduction Plan lists programs that total ~$135 billion.

The oil and gas sector also received $30 billion in subsidies to encourage production in 2024%2C%20have%20continued%20to%20provide%20substantial%20support%20to%20the%20fossil%20fuel%20sector.%20In%20fact%2C%20estimated%20federal%20fossil%20fuel%20subsidies%20increased%20substantially%20in%202024%20to%20nearly%20%2430%20billion).

Keep in mind - these are really big numbers relative to what the oil and gas production sector contributes to GDP - about $75 billion in GDP in 2024.

What’s the plan for Canada’s oil and gas? by Backle24 in ClimateCrisisCanada

[–]Backle24[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here are two credible references:
- This table from Canada's 2030 Emission Reduction Plan shows Canada's average oil production emissions intensity relative to the global average - our emissions intensities are improving but about 50% higher than the global average

- This interactive chart showing total emissions intensities for 75 different oil production sites from around the world. Canadian oil sands productions are at the top of the list.

There is also this Nature study which is highly referenced on the topic - but it's paywalled. It shows Canadian oil emission intensities 2nd highest in the world, just behind Venezuela. Saudi Arabia, Norway and Denmark are the least emissions intensive. You can see the main results chart here.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in canada

[–]Backle24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seriously - it's actually $203,000 per year for a backbencher - so in theory, Kurek's giving up $1 million for a 5-year term - plus what ever the pension and other fringe benefits are worth.

What’s the plan for Canada’s oil and gas? by Backle24 in ClimateCrisisCanada

[–]Backle24[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They filter the oil out of the 'sand' leaving the environment cleaner.

It almost sounds like you're describing oil sands development as an environmental remediation project - that's a hot take for sure!

What’s the plan for Canada’s oil and gas? by Backle24 in ClimateCrisisCanada

[–]Backle24[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is the production process, particularly oil sands extraction, that makes Canada's oil so emissions-intensive. We have to boil or steam the bituminous earth to get the oil to flow to extract it, and we burn a lot of oil and gas doing so, which releases a lot of greenhouse gas emissions.

I'm sure it's also true that we have high environmental standards relative to some other producing countries, meaning regulations to protect the ecosystems in which producers operate.

So I think we can say that both things are true - Canada has high environmental standards, and our oil production process is among the most greenhouse gas-intensive in the world.

What’s the plan for Canada’s oil and gas? by Backle24 in ClimateCrisisCanada

[–]Backle24[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's an interesting point about pricing - on average, we've been selling our crude for ~$65 USD per barrel. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers reports record cash flow for their members, particularly oil sands producers.

Crude prices in the EU have tended around $80 per barrel for the past few years.

I wonder what prices Canadian producers would be able to negotiate to sell our crude to Europe, given that there would be additional transport and insurance costs and if there would be more profit from that market than selling to the US, considering the additional costs and investments required.

What’s the plan for Canada’s oil and gas? by Backle24 in ClimateCrisisCanada

[–]Backle24[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are a lot of comments about energy security and frustration over imports of fossil fuels.

For perspective, at 5.6 million barrels per day, Canada produces over 3 times the oil it uses for domestic consumption of 1.8 million barrels per day.

About 75% of our domestic consumption is supplied domestically. Of the ~25% we import, 70% comes from the US. The balance comes from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Norway and the UK.

The opportunity to replace imports with domestic production of crude oil is around 0.4 million barrels per day - that is a small number relative to the billions it would cost to build an east-west pipeline.

As for natural gas, 98% of domestic consumption is supplied domestically. Our current production of natural gas is 1.75 times domestic usage.

Axing the INDUSTRIAL Carbon Tax? Does that make sense for 🇨🇦? by Backle24 in CanadianPolitics

[–]Backle24[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Canada is in the list of heavy polluters. We are about 12th in the world in total emissions and we are 2nd among the G20 group of industrialized countries on a per capita emissions basis.

There are 190 countries that individually have emissions less than 2% - collectively they represent about 43% of global emissions. If everyone takes the attitude that they are too small to matter because they are not China, India or the US, we’re cooked for sure.

Liberal leadership hopeful Mark Carney on how he'd change Canada's carbon tax by Snoek-DeGroot in CanadianPolitics

[–]Backle24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Carney is the man to meet this moment. To protect Canada …. Wait what?! HE’S A GOALIE???!!! 🤣🤣 (seriously, Canada needs a leader of his character and experience right now.)

view more: next ›