Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
The reality is that global warming will be a problem, not end-of-world, equivalent to losing 2-4% of average income by 2100, when each person will be 300-1,000% richer Update of IPCC by Nobel laureate in climate econ, Nordhaus https://www.nber.org/reporter/2017number3/nordhaus.html …pic.twitter.com/hnRgVGLSEt
Here are the so-called Shared Socioeconomic Pathways that tell us how rich every person will be by 2100, and how much global warming that will result in Database here: https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/SspDb Describtion here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300681 …pic.twitter.com/aGy1LwaIj4
And here are the "narratives" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300681 …pic.twitter.com/vc03YkXyVV
Inequality down in all futures, likely below *any* inequality in world last two centuries Inequality will drop the *most* with fossil fuels Inequality reduced since 1980s (with ⬆︎middle-class China/India) Continue: poor people will see incomes x23, rich just x5pic.twitter.com/PTca48papA
If climate change affects poorer countries in hotter regions more, how can a fossil fuelled scenario result in less inequality than a renewable one?
To reduce inequality globally, you need to lift dev'ing country people out of poverty. This is mostly done with lots of access to cheap, reliable energy In the fossil fuel driven scenario IPCC finds rich incomes x5, but poor incomes x23 (fix inequality)pic.twitter.com/DSMG5LySVj
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
