Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
New "research" from insurance giant Swiss Re finds that climate change could cost us 18% of GDP in just 29 years
This is vastly more than the UN's estimate of 2.6% in 79 years
How?
They simply multiply respected damage costs by 10x!
You can't make this up
Thread
https://twitter.com/drvolts/status/1386425010223423490 …
The UN finds that a temperature rise of 3.66°C by 2100 means a loss of 2.6% of GDP right in line with most estimates UN 1.5°C report, p256, https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ Similar to collected estimates by climate Nobel economist Nordhaus https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157 …pic.twitter.com/FdX8xMcXH2
But Swiss Re claim temperatures will rise *much* faster They insist that with no climate policy, the temperature in 2050 will be 3.2°C That is *worse* than the *worst* of the worst-case RCP8.5 Ridiculous https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/topics-and-risk-dialogues/climate-and-natural-catastrophe-risk/expertise-publication-economics-of-climate-change.html …pic.twitter.com/6ydQBIEJhF
Swiss Re then use standard economic models and find that 3.2°C means 2.2% GDP loss Right in line with other findings (not surprising, because they simply use the standard models) But of course, that doesn't make any headlines or sell any additional insurance
The damage cost of 3.2°C temperature rise is 2.2% of GDP Clearly not high enough So Swiss Re simply multiplies almost all damage with 5x and 10x, and sends out that as the press release Swiss Re doesn't even bother just dressing it up Here is their full justificationpic.twitter.com/3TK1Nw8K5f
Swiss Re finds that even *worse* than the *worst* of the worst-case temperature rises will cost 2.2% of GDP But because this is not enough, they simply multiply it by 10x It gets more attention and likely sells more insurance But despicable analysis https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/topics-and-risk-dialogues/climate-and-natural-catastrophe-risk/expertise-publication-economics-of-climate-change.html …pic.twitter.com/DpVElWiWVB
Swiss Re finds that even *worse* than the *worst* of the worst-case temperature rises will cost 2.2% of GDP But because this is not enough, they simply multiply it by 10x It gets more attention and likely sells more insurance But despicable analysis https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/topics-and-risk-dialogues/climate-and-natural-catastrophe-risk/expertise-publication-economics-of-climate-change.html …pic.twitter.com/6qFEVdbqQM
OTOH @SwissRe, making up estimates of damages from #climatechange is precisely what economists like Nordhaus & @RichardTol have done. Nordhaus simply ASSUMED 87% of GDP would be unaffected! https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2020.1807856 … Insurance companies have every reason NOT to trust them.pic.twitter.com/PPW2TlcCVL
They did, at least, explain the rationale behind their estimates.
Are insurance companies so dazzled by all this trendy climate modelling that they haven't considered the possibility that global temperatures will decline over the next half century or so?
Keep going one day they’ll hear you
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
