in which the Economist abandons Bill Nordhaus and goes full Greta Thunberghttps://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1099435455253229568 …
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @RichardTol
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
1 vastaus 3 uudelleentwiittausta 7 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BjornLomborg ja @RichardTol
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 …
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @dwallacewells ja @RichardTol
Dear David (if I may), thanks for ref+explanation for $600tr. I know ref, but no explanation for its calculation (just says "under review") Is the $660tr the total cost of climate impacts over 21st century, or is it cost per year? (neither clear in ref or IPCC)pic.twitter.com/hTJ3UFuiSR
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BjornLomborg ja @RichardTol
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).
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @dwallacewells ja @RichardTol
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
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys
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
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.