Wow, so now global warming will leave Earth a "lifeless husk of a planet" Sometimes it is hard to believe that alarmism can go higher than 11, and yet someone finds a 12https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/1099056631365677056 …
-
Näytä tämä ketju
-
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
8 vastausta 90 uudelleentwiittausta 185 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
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
2 vastausta 16 uudelleentwiittausta 50 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BjornLomborg
If climate change affects poorer countries in hotter regions more, how can a fossil fuelled scenario result in less inequality than a renewable one?
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @yzingher
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
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BjornLomborg ja @yzingher
Yes, poor countries are harder hit by global warming mainly bc lower resillience and more work outside, but getting rich avoids most of that We must always remember that climate has negative impacts, but so has climate policies. We should minimize their total, not just the firstpic.twitter.com/7nqaLEl7pa
1 vastaus 1 uudelleentwiittaus 2 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BjornLomborg
Poor countries are hit harder by climate change because of their geography. So inequality would rise as poorer countries are hit by higher costs. It seems sensible to reduce the cost though climate policies, and help the poor pay for it by redistribution from the rich.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys
We could also help them by investments in education, health care and nutrition That would generally help them *much* more for every dollar spent and it would have the benefit of investing in what people in the developing world actually say they want http://data.myworld2015.org/ pic.twitter.com/ApsQyrFdMa
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BjornLomborg
You’ll never hear me arguing against healthcare, education or nutrition! But aggregate individual opinion on climate change shouldn’t replace expert option. More to the point I don’t think it’s an either/or issue; we should address both inequality and climate change
0 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäysKiitos. 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.