in which the Economist abandons Bill Nordhaus and goes full Greta Thunberghttps://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1099435455253229568 …
-
My read was that it was a total figure for all climate damages this century in 1.5, 2, and 3.7C scenarios. But worth looking into more... (And very good to be in touch, Bjorn, I admire your work tremendously).
Thank you, and good to be in touch Yes, makes the most sense that it is the cost across the century That makes it straight-forward into Nordhaus/general territory, where he finds 2.5°C at ~$45tr (https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20170046 … — likely slightly lower bc a slightly higher discount rate)pic.twitter.com/xaQju1tp3P
-
-
The $600tr is discounted; compare net worth of the 21st century with Nordhaus (although he has higher discount, so total lower) of $4491tr, that means global warming cost is 13.4% of total GDP Certainly above peer-reviewed finds from IPCC (update of IPCC) https://www.nber.org/reporter/2017number3/nordhaus.html …pic.twitter.com/w6s7gecqkd
-
In this paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0071-9 …) Burke et al estimated a cost to global GDP of 4C of 30%+ (compared with a projected global GDP without the impacts of climate change).
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Ah, here is the more straight-forward reply. Tyndall's long report is here: https://tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/implications_of_global_warming_of_1.5_and_2_degrees_-_final_report_1_0.pdf … On page 23 they show the cost from now to 1.5°C (0.18% of GDP in 2100) and then cost from 1.5°C to 3.66°C (2.34%), so total cost about 2.52% of GDP. Right in mainstreampic.twitter.com/ajGFUhxA5R
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.