From the article:
> Their research has not yet been peer reviewed, but the authors found that even using what they describe as a “narrow accounting” method — looking only at climate impacts from heat and extreme weather on household budgets and mortality — there were “sizable costs to U.S. households from recent climate change patterns.” Those started at $400 per year and went as high as $900 depending on how extreme weather were attributed to climate change, adding up to an aggregate cost of about $50 billion to $110 billion nationwide.
Sorry about the hard paywall; there is no other coverage yet.
$900 per year for climate damage but people still complain about a carbon tax that’d be like half of that. We’re literally paying more to suffer than we’d pay to fix it
We’re looking at $1000/year increase in home insurance in California on average just in the past few years.
3 comments
From the article:
> Their research has not yet been peer reviewed, but the authors found that even using what they describe as a “narrow accounting” method — looking only at climate impacts from heat and extreme weather on household budgets and mortality — there were “sizable costs to U.S. households from recent climate change patterns.” Those started at $400 per year and went as high as $900 depending on how extreme weather were attributed to climate change, adding up to an aggregate cost of about $50 billion to $110 billion nationwide.
Sorry about the hard paywall; there is no other coverage yet.
[The working paper that the article is about is open-access](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w34525/w34525.pdf)
$900 per year for climate damage but people still complain about a carbon tax that’d be like half of that. We’re literally paying more to suffer than we’d pay to fix it
We’re looking at $1000/year increase in home insurance in California on average just in the past few years.
Comments are closed.