My main point is that we have "scientists" willing to put economic cost projection figures on devastating climate change: that it will "cost" x% of GDP growth going forward. These are complete and utter bollocks - no one can predict all the costs of climate disasters. 2/
-
Show this thread
-
But that doesn't stop these figures being quoted in the press, repeated by scientific colleagues who should honestly know better, and even Nordhaus, the leader of this area, being awarded a Nobel Prize in economics last year. 3/
2 replies 4 retweets 38 likesShow this thread -
Yes, these numbers are "educated estimates" or "projections" or whatever, but still, just utter nonsense. Saying that one knows that 4 degrees of warming will result in x% of GDP costs, when it will make the tropics uninhabitable is just nonsense and should be treated as such. 4/
1 reply 8 retweets 60 likesShow this thread -
But that raises another question: what about the human costs of climate impacts? Surely we should be able to estimate those better? I mean those are based on real science, right? Like deaths from heat, hunger, flooding, disease spread, etc? Surely these could be estimated ... 5/
2 replies 4 retweets 39 likesShow this thread -
with much stronger scientific accuracy? And the answer here is really interesting, because it's both yes, no, and no one is supporting this area of research enough. Yes, some pathways between impacts and health are very well known. [Thread interruption due to family morning. TBC]
10 replies 3 retweets 49 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @JKSteinberger
Looking forward to the rest of this thread. I'd never thought about this before, but yes, this is wack. If we're estimating financial loss (even if it's bollocks), why aren't we estimating death? I thought the IPCC did do this to some extent?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emahlee @JKSteinberger
Or maybe it was that the IPCC said that food and water scarcity would effect X millions of people and then one could draw one's own conclusion? I'm forgetting...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emahlee @JKSteinberger
Because economics is what runs the world. It's what businesses and governments want to hear about and it's what businesses and governments make long term decisions based upon. They don't want to hear about societal collapse because the economic cost is... well... much larger.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PaulDJohnston @emahlee
Hi Emily and Paul, now finished thread, so have a look?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JKSteinberger @PaulDJohnston
This is great. Well done, as usual. I also look forward to your upcoming thread where you respond to a lot of the experts who weighed in before you got a chance to finish.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Emily Cunningham Retweeted Gregor Macdonald
I’m learning and absorbing *so much* in the energy transition space. I don’t think the market can save us — we need to be much faster! None the less, I’m very encouraged by the direction of the market — that fossil fuels are set to peak very very soonhttps://twitter.com/gregormacdonald/status/1082018027967664128?s=21 …
Emily Cunningham added,
-
-
And again, the market and capitalism got us into this mess — so I’m not saying the market is our savior. But, I’ll take what I can get if it moves us in the right direction. We just can’t stop there.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 3 more replies
New conversation -
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.