Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
This is the consequence of unrelenting, incorrect press coverage telling us that we need to change tack on climate change NOW or it will all endpic.twitter.com/lvky4x7t7f
The truth is, that global warming will have a negative impact but fairly small Best estimate (update from UN climate panel by Nobel Laureate Nordhaus): The effect of unmitigated climate change in 2100 is equivalent to a reduction in incomes of 2-4% https://www.nber.org/reporter/2017number3/nordhaus.html …pic.twitter.com/MnABmS0a6T
Ocasio-Cortez: The world will end in 12 years, and your concern is cost? She should have said: Climate will cost 0.2% more of GDP by 2030, and your concern is cost? Hell yes Spending lots to do little is bad And many other issues need attentionpic.twitter.com/ifp7bnsc60
Most people don't understand how the costs of climate can be so small But that is because media overplays most costs E.g. cost of extreme weather makes up an ever *smaller* part of global GDP https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17477891.2018.1540343 …pic.twitter.com/JpBIzsh2k4
And perhaps surprisingly, ever fewer people die from climate-related disasters In 1920s, half a million people died each year, this decade about 20,000 Global population has increased four-fold, meaning individual climate risk declined almost 99% https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/photos/a.221758208967.168468.146605843967/10156615395793968/?type=3&theater …pic.twitter.com/sB5UWgcU0f
This does not mean we should ignore climate It *is* a problem, and we *can* fix part of it. We should just do so smartly (though green R&D), and carefully, so we don't end up spending more resources to fix climate badly, than the benefits we'll reap https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-change-self-defeating-alarmism-by-bjorn-lomborg-2018-12 …
Question: 2-4% of income (i.e. total GDP) in 2100, or 2-4% of GDP growth (i.e. 0.04-0.08% less GDP growth per year, assuming 2% GDP growth)? If the former, and assuming 2% GDP growth up to 2100, the impact of global warming is almost negligible, right?
The logic behind these forecasts is so flawed. It compares the economic output of different places today and their average temperature and creates a regression of the differences. We are talking about climate change not climate differences. It's the change that's costly.
So just because places 3C cooler have 2% higher GDP doesn't mean that the climate change impacts of 3C warming will be 2% - distrupted rainfall, storms, flooding that the infrastructure, agricultural systems are not designed for any climate change will be very costly.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
