Emily Cunningham

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/

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]

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?

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...

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.

Hi Emily and Paul, now finished thread, so have a look?

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.

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 …