Ah, the amazing point where you're called "denier" because you accept the problem but have the temerity of pointing out some policies just waste money I promote analysis of Nordhaus, who got the Nobel prize for figuring out which policies are smart and which just burn resourceshttps://twitter.com/DoctorVive/status/1090604398831718402 …
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
This is old research against backdrop of
@IPCC 1.5 report. Why focus on tuberculosis or immunisation if the people you save will then die from extreme heat/cold, floods, & droughts, starvation instead? ...
Well, partly because that is what poor people would like you to focus on Partly, it is simply wrong to say many people will die from extreme heat/cold etc. Climate-related deaths are at an all-time low https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/photos/a.221758208967/10157523426118968/?type=3&theater …pic.twitter.com/mMKkAH0eIh
-
-
I stand corrected. Deaths from extreme heat/cold are not as high now as they will be in future. But your graphic & overarching argument would be more truthful by incorporating, for example, the deaths from air pollution. (Excellent report from
@WHO released last year.) -
Exposure to air pollution causes 7 million deaths worldwide & costs an estimated US$ 5.11 trillion in welfare losses globally. In 15 countries w. highest GHG emissions, health impacts of air pollution estimated to cost more than 4% of their GDP. https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/05-12-2018-health-benefits-far-outweigh-the-costs-of-meeting-climate-change-goals …
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.