Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
"...two effects range from 97 to 301 billion 2014 dollars per year (0.09 - 0.28% of current world GDP). We argue that aquaculture output would not be reduced, due to the high potential for adaptation by this young industry." Which means complete loss of corals is no big deal?
Corals are included in costs: It counts $2-49bn/yr in the report
I think that's why this is hard to keep a sense of proportion - because things that feel big, (e.g. complete loss of corals reefs), are only a "small" percent of GDP. My question: what DOES count as a big percent of GDP? It's small relative to our sense of numbers. But to build
Our intuition a bit, can you give an example of something that IS a big share of GDP? And some intuition behind why?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
