Bjorn LomborgVarmennettu tili

Of course, New York Times emphasizes Vietnam, as it is the most obvious and one of the biggest places where large areas are potentially underwater at high tidepic.twitter.com/QWX4uOfDLw

So, how does NYTimes end up saying that "Southern Vietnam could all but disappear" because of sea-level rise from global warming, when actual additional land at risk is slight?pic.twitter.com/TUx7zR5cdH

It is because they leave out that *today* almost as many are living 'at risk' and clearly still living therepic.twitter.com/umdKZEBg0R

First, NYTimes has not really thought about what life is actually like in the Mekong River Deltapic.twitter.com/o9kAutCdo3

Second, the research leaves out coastal defenses This is not unreasonable as research (that was not their topic), but of course, it makes it absolutely silly to make claims about real-life impacts without looking at actual adaptationpic.twitter.com/Pbs08wYLEH

Actual people in south Vietnam, in the An Giang province, live well, because they have protected most of their land — although NYTimes would claim they would be underwater This one province produces almost 1% of the world's rice! https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10113-019-01548-x …pic.twitter.com/ipZkdfulc3

If anything, the NYTimes article and the background research underscores that we are eminently able to tackle sea-level rise, because today 19 million people live in Vietnam below the high-water line, and most thrivepic.twitter.com/20pB1YNmaV

Yes, more people will be below the tide-line in 2050 because of sea-level rise, but it is likely that the *actual* number of people flooded will decline, not the least because developing income will more than double https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/SspDb pic.twitter.com/PXJoJjNTYK