Net zero by 2050 will continue to be a massive policy implementation challenge, but the global political consensus on climate has never been stronger ... a Biden election moves climate politics fully into a new era ...https://twitter.com/MLiebreich/status/1319035999385767939 …
-
What is the source for the £12500 figure?
NZ net-zero 2050 estimate w/effective policies: 16% GDP cost (only academic estimate so far) https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Climate%20Change/NZIER%20report%20-%20Economic%20impact%20analysis%20of%202050%20emissions%20targets%20-%20FINAL.pdf … 16% GDP cost of US GDP in 2050 of $34.4 trillion (UN SSP2) is $5.5tr, pop of 388m (US 2017 projections) is $14,200 (I think I used higher US pop estimate)
-
-
Well, 1. SSPs can't be used for meaningful cost benefit analyses (setting aside everything else wrong w/ 30-yr CBA, but I digress): See--> https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/ahsxw/ … 2. Cost effectiveness is a political boundary condition for policy design (see--> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514000901?casa_token=bloBOGjZ99QAAAAA:XTcghcwgxVigwuL0Fjle-K-YEcMN6OE1yEpDU-kSOJGu_R2rEgjvBRACmogdAo9YaqzmPlFMoKo …)
-
Not a cost-benefit analysis, just cost estimate. I used SSP2 for US GDP in 2050. $34 trillion doesn't sound too off. I didn't argue cost-effectiveness. But policies with costs orders of magnitude higher cost than willingness to pay spell trouble over decades
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Thanks!
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.