Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
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 …
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
