Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Indeed, this is also true globally, where weather disaster costs are *not* increasing (seemingly slightly decreasing) in share of GDP update of https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17477891.2018.1540343 …pic.twitter.com/rIHwFkLASK
Stiglitz other argument is health costs, but unfortunately, he couldn't really be bothered to find any arguments. They are apparently still "being tabulated", but 'trust me, they will run into tens of billions of dollars.'pic.twitter.com/4MlsILXC3p
Well, if it is okay with Stiglitz, I think data is better Here deaths from cold and heat in the US — similar to most other countries. Heat deaths are small and declining (because richer people can afford aircon) whereas cold deaths are big and increasing https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412017310346 …pic.twitter.com/p47WxeVTlc
Then he sums up his argument with a grandfatherly 'prevention is better than treatment', which — as he admits — is just a cliche, not an argumentpic.twitter.com/YZdRmqoblp
So on this basis: - climate costs of 2% GDP, exaggerated 4x and will change almost nothing even if CO₂ cut to zero - unsubstantiated health costs, although cold is killing more and increasing - a cliche on prevention - metaphor on WWII he wants us to spend $trillionspic.twitter.com/wzcwMwFe9J
Yet, another Nobel Laureate who's actually studied climate (and got his Nobel in climate economics), Nordhaus, shows the update of the UN Climate Panel estimate of the cost of climate (these are all the major studies of costs) 2-4% of GDP by 2100 https://www.nber.org/reporter/2017number3/nordhaus.html …pic.twitter.com/IGkt1QEf6a
Stiglitz casually suggests that civilization and our lives are at risk. He has read too much Guardian This is simply untrue. If you read the UN Climate Panel reports, this is not what they say Climate change costs 2-4% of GDP, not the end of the worldpic.twitter.com/qkBUc4XcaE
By the end of the century, average person in world likely 5-10x richer, with African up to 34x, UN scenarios (SSPs) (Inconveniently, richest world is fossil-fuel world SSP5) 2-4% warming costs of incomes 500-1000% higher is NOT existential crisis https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300681?via%3Dihub …pic.twitter.com/rbkYcTA5GH
Which is why the Nobel laureate in actual climate economics finds that, yes, we should do something, but not too much: Cost of nothing: 3% Smart policy, reduce temp a bit: 2.3% Go towards Stiglitz, Greta Thunberg etc: 4% and upwards https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20170046 …pic.twitter.com/MkDyjC3cir
How the hell can a smart guy like Stiglitz write such unfounded drivel? Yes, climate a problem, yes, fix it smartly with moderate CO₂ tax and green innovation But let's stop the ridiculous alarmism asking for $trillions with little or no argument but fear https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-change-emissions-rhetoric-reality-by-bjorn-lomborg-2019-05 …
In parts of the world which is not the absolute richest part of the world, more people will die from heatstroke, likely old people more than young people, this is a moral cost but won't hurt the economy much. Not until middle aged people in working age segments start getting sick
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
