Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
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 …
That's an annual effect on growth of 0.03% or 0.008% per quarter. Compared to other factors that affect growth it's virtually zero
Is this GDP loss every year? *If* anticipated GDP growth is, let's say 2% and *if* loss is -2% are they claiming the economy would be flat in that scenario? That doesn't seem good.
It is the reduction in GDP by 2100. The annual reduction in growth rate is about 0.032 percent (so instead of 2% growth, we'll see 1.968% growth)
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
