SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the buy-shares-in-suntan-lotion-and-guns dept.
Recent research suggests climate change will lead to troubling social and economic damages, including a severe drop in global GDP.
What will a planet plagued by escalating climate change look like? No one really knows. But speaking at EmTech MIT 2016, Solomon Hsiang, a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, presented results based on his recent analysis of economic and climate data that begin to more clearly define what the world might look like as it gets hotter.
It's not a pretty picture. Rising temperatures will dramatically damage agricultural yields and human health, and will significantly reduce overall economic growth. In fact, Hsiang said, data suggests global GDP will be reduced by 23 percent by the end of the century if climate change progresses largely unabated, compared to a world without global warming.
That decrease in economic output will hit the poorest 60 percent of the population disproportionately hard, said Hsiang. In doing so, it will surely exacerbate inequality, as many rich regions of the world that have lower average annual temperatures, such as northern Europe, benefit from the changes. Hotter areas around the tropics, including large parts of south Asia and Africa, already tend to be poorer and will suffer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 25 2016, @05:08AM
So, really, if scientists and their models could really be "bought" as frequently as skeptics like to imagine, who has the resources, lobbyists, etc. to do the "buying"??
Who is "buying"? The governments, of course. Most of these scientists and programs are quite open as to what their sources of funding are. Similarly, the primary arbitrator of what climate research is supposed to be, is funded by the UN.
Except most scientists don't seem to be doing that. I'm skeptical of the accuracy of models too, but I'm much more skeptical of those who'd claim that most of the models are severely rigged.
Why are they always biased in the same direction? I'll note also that this particular research of the article is intended to scare the Persian Gulf states which are not only some of the key resistance to stopping the use of petroleum (a key mitigation strategy), but also some of the larger subsidizers of fossil fuel use. How come we never hear of how awesome the real estate expansion will be in Canada and Siberia? Or the potential economic and trade benefits of the Northwest Passage? Any discussion of climate change is always about the drawbacks never the advantages.
Why has the IPCC never provided alternatives? They've only recommended holding the line at 2 C increase from 1850 and until recently refused to discuss adaptation strategies. That's a typical adversarial argument sell. Only mention the advantages of your desired choice and only mention the disadvantages of other choices (or don't mention them at all). Never provide a balanced viewpoint.