Negative economic/physical impact of climate change is also deeply regressive. The wealthy are far more insulated. The only conclusion that follows is it's better to be rich than poor. The costs are real whether you reflect them in pricing or not... http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @geoffmprice @JSegor and
Negative impact of aggressively addressing climate change with current technology would also be hugely negative on the poor via a suppressed economy.
8 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @JSegor and
That was my point – the poor lose either way, worse in the do-nothing case (because net economic outcomes are worse). Who else absorbs the brunt of net economic negativity, the wealthy? Economic impact either way. A 'third path' with no hit requires passing new laws of physics.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @geoffmprice @JSegor and
We can’t know which path is worse for the poor. Too many variables.
6 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @geoffmprice and
My reading right now from some of the best scientists in the world is inaction is no longer an option. We should have started budgeting in 2010. It is going to have to work for the poor, middle class, rich. You either incur transition costs, physical costs or both. Not a game.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JSegor @geoffmprice and
And while inaction is not an option, is it not also true that action (that is big enough) is impossible in a practical sense?
5 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @geoffmprice and
Inaction: "Unless adaptation measures are taken, sea level rise could cost the globe $1 trillion annually by 2050." That is annual.https://youtu.be/AXv7DV0YzS4
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JSegor @geoffmprice and
Similar to the cost of action, I believe.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @geoffmprice and
If AGW is what scientists say it is, your best option is taking the transition costs and avoiding as much AGW physical costs as possible. Some of the physical costs will be permanent and irreversible. The transition costs will be temporary as the economy of scale kicks in.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Depends on the size of the transition cost. If it cripples global GDP by 50% (for example) for a decade, you do more harm than good. That also destabilizes countries and leaves little for disaster relief, healthcare, etc.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.