Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
The UN Climate Panel tells us that climate impacts by 2070s are equal to average reduction in income of 0.2-2% Equivalent to one recession in the next half-century https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf …pic.twitter.com/4gKoUNaZo9
UN Climate Panel's estimate of damage across temperatures (updated by Climate Nobel Laureate Nordhaus) shows moderate costs — likely about 2-4% of GDP by 2100, even if we do nothing https://www.nber.org/reporter/2017number3/nordhaus.html …pic.twitter.com/bon0GmHr02
Even the new 1.5°C UN Climate Panel report pointed out that if we do nothing, a 3.66°C temperature increase will cost 2.6% of global GDP https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ , page 256pic.twitter.com/i6Q2C1gsmS
And by 2100, the average person in the world will make 450% of what (s)he does in 2020. The average person in the non-OECD will make 600% of today (middle-of-road SSP2) Compare this to climate impacts of 2.6% or 4% even without policies https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300681?via%3Dihub …pic.twitter.com/Kt1ICvF0I4
Compare this to the cost of going carbon neutral in the cheapest way by 2050 (so effectively, and rather late, given current breathless promises) New Zealand gov't requested official cost estimate: 16% of GDP (https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Climate%20Change/NZIER%20report%20-%20Economic%20impact%20analysis%20of%202050%20emissions%20targets%20-%20FINAL.pdf … (p16, avg of ZNE targets)pic.twitter.com/WzHko0PbOc
Paying 16% to avoid a small part of a 2-4% problem is a bad deal For NZ it is more than last year’s entire national budget on social security, welfare, health, education, police, courts, defense, environment, and every other part of government combined. $13 tax on a gallon of gas
That is what first Nobel laureate in climate economics, William Nordhaus finds We should cut the cheapest and most damaging CO₂, but optimal level is cutting from 4.1°C in 2100 to 3.5°C 2.5°C would be a terrible deal, and 2°C or 1.5°C worse (& impossible) https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20170046 …pic.twitter.com/yIIYwLeyja
So maybe we should stop scaring kids silly Maybe we should stop scaring ourselves silly? And maybe start making sensible climate policy, not based on fear but honest awareness of tradeoffs between climate damage and climate policy damage?https://twitter.com/bjornlomborg/status/1136724909093208065 …
You're getting it wrong, - 2 to -4 % a year is huge if it is repeated for 30 years. And above 3° you are also entering a domain where you don't really know what could happen to the system stability.
So even if the dramatization is indeed counterproductive, we can't just let go and need a big coordinate effort to stay under 2°
Perhaps you should invite our ignorant PM, Justin Trudeau who has passed a motion in the Canadian Parliament that we are facing a climate emergency. He is a clown performing to the climate alarmist audience.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
