in which the Economist abandons Bill Nordhaus and goes full Greta Thunberghttps://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1099435455253229568 …
-
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).
-
Projections vary significantly, and of course it depends what your baseline is. But I think it's fair to say that the research is moving pretty rapidly in the direction of higher economic costs to climate change, even if so much of that projection is governed by uncertainties.
- 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.