Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
UN define two futures: Sustainable and Fossil fuels Climate damages clearly greater with fossil fuels But even discounting climate damages, average person in poor world will be much better off in a Fossil fuel world Read my 2020 peer-reviewed article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157 …pic.twitter.com/VAdCKOoU9n
I’m sure the poor people in Bangladesh will be better off snorkeling to and from work. The highlighted part of what you said is where you should have just ended your tweet. Climate damages are greater with fossil fuels. The end.pic.twitter.com/kE564odZMk
Love your work, but the GDP next month… or for that matter… last month.. is so poorly understood the official number gets revised over and over and over. Why does anyone think we have a clue what gdp will be in 2100. Or if it will even matter
Love his work. I can see why he has no training in economics. He is a political scientist, and a FF fan, of an industry that kills 1 in every 5 people, alone from pollution.https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought …
but counting in climate damage, poor countries would even face literal famine, eh?? and Devastation is the result of being unable, cannot afford to adapt. building dykes is super expensive and cannot help forever erosion
Bjorn: GDP is still higly correlated with energy supply (~$6000/TOe). o.w. 90% coming from fossil fuels and biomass burningpic.twitter.com/p1gxRaQPzb
This is from Dr.William Rees, very much recommend, it is imperative that we get the diagnosis correct.https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/15/4508/htm …
It's very informative on the limitations of specific technologies. But it has a Caldwellsian overlook. The antinatalism clashes with the rudimentarization. Authors argue both for much greater reliance on muscle power and, what would end up being, a very top-heavy age pyramid.
Why did you choose 100 years for global death risk, and 28 years for global costs? Do data for the latter not extend 100 years?
Discounting climate damages means the average person in poor word will be better with fossils fuels? Why would we discount climate damages when even you say climate damages are clearly greater with fossils fuels?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
