in which the Economist abandons Bill Nordhaus and goes full Greta Thunberghttps://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1099435455253229568 …
Unfortunately, @dwallacewells impact is off by more than an order of magnitude. He claims $600 trillion in damages by 2100 http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/book-excerpt-the-uninhabitable-earth-david-wallace-wells.html …
That is at least 60% of GDP at 4°C, which is literally off the charts of the peer-reviewed, published impacts https://www.nber.org/reporter/2017number3/nordhaus.html …pic.twitter.com/pBsn7na9ap
-
-
Projections vary enormously, but have been getting much, much worse over just the last few years, as the models evolve. That $600tn figure is extrapolated from an estimated $551tn at 3.7C from this report, which the IPCC endorsed in October: https://tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/briefing_note_risks_warren_r1-1.pdf …
-
Like any projection, it could prove inaccurate, and there are many variables between where we are and 4C. But all the best recent research suggests that estimates from the era of the Stern Review dramatically understate the impacts.
- 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.