You missed a "Don't"https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1449958206231482372 …
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @theresphysics
Wonder what experts think of this argument that investing in green > emission pledges if(?) individual country contribution to future warming is small.
@hausfath1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @CColose ja @theresphysics
Its interesting that the study Lomborg links to is "The surprisingly inexpensive cost of state-driven emission control strategies". I'm not sure how accurate his number is, but another way to look it: "net zero by 2050 will cost one fifth of what we will spend on the military".
3 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 5 tykkäystä -
The study looks at how *state* net-zero policy is surprisingly little more costly (13.1% GDP) than the optimal (11.9%) I think you got the military wrong: it costs 778bn in 2020 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/ …), so net-zero at $4.4tr is more than 5x *more* expensive
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 5 tykkäystä -
US military spending between now and 2050 will be $62,240 per capita (non-discounted).
3 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys
The 11.9% cost is per year starting in 2050, so within a few years cost after 2050 will be much bigger than military spend over decades plus reasonable ramp up means it will happen much sooner But more reasonable to compare annual cost to annual cost
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.