You should put that number in ANNUALIZED terms, because that's how EVERYONE thinks of GDP!
Doing nothing on climate means a total cost of 3% total, global GDP Smart policy: cost of 2.3% Doing too much (Paris Goal): 4.7% cost Read more on smart climate policy in my peer-reviewed article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157 …pic.twitter.com/bO2EQEVHwV
-
-
-
It is the same number on average across 500 years discounted (so cost of climate on avg is 3% of GDP across 500 years discounted) But in reality, it will vary dramatically across time, with no action cost much lower in early years and higher in later, with action the other way
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
If anyone doubts that Nordhaus and other Neoclassical climate change economists like
@RichardTol are enabling the#climatechange deniers/trivializers, here's your proof. -
Amen.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
2.3% is still spending far too much on essentially a non problem. Far better things to spend it on.
-
Yes like saving lives... Oh wait
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Discounted cashflows are quite tricky to estimate over long periods. A single line gives a false view of certainty. Do you need to include ranges for the cost of capital?
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
How exactly have you calculated the cost to the biosphere: the loss of biodiversity, the loss of ecological functions, extinctions? Detailed working, please.
-
Indeed. How many $ for the loss of the coral reefs?
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Also; you get what you pay for?
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.