Why we need to stop aiming for the 2°C target, which is both impossible and a hindrance to better policies https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2018-02-08/two-degree-delusion …pic.twitter.com/02NhbjBP6S
Näytä tämä ketju
Not fixing climate smartly can cost us $29.9 trillion in total Going for the 2°C (a Stern approach) could be twice as costly ($67.3tr) as doing nothing (reduces climate costs $46tr, but incurs $155tr in policy costs) http://www.nber.org/papers/w22933 pic.twitter.com/JZagFtHDKr
-
-
are you sure about your interpretation of the numbers if 29.9 trillion is a cost, then a negative number (say -67.3 ) would be a benefit....
-
BAU is the BAU, so $29.9tr is the benefit of the optimal solution (I put it as the cost of not achieving the optimal solution) whereas the $67.3tr is the cost of an overzealous policy (reducing climate impacts more but increasing policy costs much more)
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
What is the concentration pathway or forcing in 2100 you have assumed? Do you use the IPCC midpoint climate sensitivity? I ask because I consider RCP8.5 an exaggeration which should never be used. The best approach is to use RCP4.5 and 6 as BAU boundaries.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
I just finished reading the Nordhaus 9_17 paper. It has the same "glitch" as the DICE RCP8.5: completely disregards the oil, gas, and coal stock producible at a given price tier (in other words, it fails to consider depletion)
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
When we run a model taking into account the gradual depletion of fossil fuels, and gradual improvements in other technologies, we see gradual replacement and a peak CO2 concentration = 630 ppm. The market optimizes response.
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.