1-2% of GDP seems suspiciously low for total decarbonisation. Of course some technologies may prove less costly than expected. But for every such historic e.g. like PV there are others (CCS, PWRs, tidal, fusion) which have either failed to deliver or increased in estimated cost.
Going zero "cannot possibly exceed 1-2% of GDP" Eh, yes Cost of just 80% reduction in 2050 with *best* policy for EU is 5% http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S2010007813400010 … Going zero carbon for NZ is 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 … And much higher costs if not optimal policy https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/misguided-nordhaus-model-optimal-climate-change-by-adair-turner-2019-08 …pic.twitter.com/Oi4Ql0gYAv
-
-
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
World GDP is roughly $90 Trillion and rising. The UN is only asking for 2% of it. It’s only $1.8 Trillion! Seriously! This should be alarming to everyone. Unless you are profiting from this money that is.
-
And what exactly will the UN do with it.... nothing as with everything it touches
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Optimal policy may not to be going zero but that paper you cite found the cost was 0.7% to 2030 for an 80% reduction by 2050 (the cost then increasing). It gives costs of 0.9% to 2050 for a 40% reduction. One might expect a 60% reduction by 2050 for < 2%.
Kiitos. 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.