Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday August 26 2019, @06:05AM   Printer-friendly

Prevailing economic research anticipates the burden of climate change falling on hot or poor nations. Some predict that cooler or wealthier economies will be unaffected or even see benefits from higher temperatures.

However, a new study co-authored by researchers from the University of Cambridge suggests that virtually all countries—whether rich or poor, hot or cold—will suffer economically by 2100 if the current trajectory of carbon emissions is maintained.

In fact, the research published today by the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that—on average—richer, colder countries would lose as much income to climate change as poorer, hotter nations.

Under a "business as usual" emissions scenario, average global temperatures are projected to rise over four degrees Celsius by the end of the century. This would cause the United States to lose 10.5% of its GDP by 2100—a substantial economic hit, say researchers.

Canada, which some claim will benefit economically from temperature increase, would lose over 13% of its income by 2100. The research shows that keeping to the Paris Agreement limits the losses of both North American nations to under 2% of GDP.

Researchers say that 7% of global GDP is likely to vanish by the end of the century unless "action is taken". Japan, India and New Zealand lose 10% of their income. Switzerland is likely to have an economy that is 12% smaller by 2100. Russia would be shorn of 9% of its GDP, with the UK down by 4%.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday August 26 2019, @06:24AM (6 children)

    by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Monday August 26 2019, @06:24AM (#885539) Journal

    The paper is paywalled. Since we can't read it, what's left? Appeal to authority is not a valid argument.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 26 2019, @06:51AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 26 2019, @06:51AM (#885544)

    If you really really want to know...
    There was a site, something with sci and some axle, or center or about a point from where the spokes radiate. In Russia
    It also had an .onion presence and a page on wikipedia. And a twitter account, with the domain names where you can access the service spelled on its logo.

    • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 26 2019, @07:05AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 26 2019, @07:05AM (#885547)

      No need to be so snarky, not everybody knows about such things. [wikipedia.org]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 26 2019, @12:00PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 26 2019, @12:00PM (#885600)

        So why can't TFS link to that site instead?

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday August 26 2019, @05:53PM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 26 2019, @05:53PM (#885734) Journal
          Just click on the 'Original Submission link. That is the full published story.
  • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday August 26 2019, @05:52PM (1 child)

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 26 2019, @05:52PM (#885732) Journal
    Its not paywalled where I am - the full article was submitted so check the Original Submission.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday August 26 2019, @08:24PM

      by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Monday August 26 2019, @08:24PM (#885790) Journal

      I'm talking about the academic journal paper, which is what the press release is talking about, and links to at the bottom. Press releases for academic papers are a form of marketing that shouldn't be taken at face value.