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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Informative) by qzm on Monday August 26 2019, @07:04AM (3 children)

    by qzm (3260) on Monday August 26 2019, @07:04AM (#885546)

    Unfortunately pretty much this.

    However they get a great reception at symposiums and conferences, and are easy to get published.. so...

    They basically take the output of a bunch of iterative unproven models (and if you dont know why iterative models are high risk, then you should find out.. hint: errors accumulate) and they use them in economic models, which are generally accepted to be of zero value (otherwise the people who have them would be fabulously rich by now).. and conclude... what exactly?

    But, they get published, and cited, so they get to keep their jobs, and fly away to a few more nice conferences.

    Meanwhile the rest of the world is sinking faster under the current economic lies than any 80 year prediction could ever achieve (2% inflation? really? I wonder why my static cost of living is increasing by closer to 15%.. must just be me)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday August 26 2019, @01:09PM (2 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday August 26 2019, @01:09PM (#885621)

    Not saying the predictions are wrong, but these are the kinds of conclusions that are amplified by certain interest groups: CALL TO ARMS, WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER!!!

    Since all the predictions are basically more noise than signal, the ones that get promoted and circulated are the ones that line up with what the promoters and circulators want to say...

    But, fear not, life will go on - somehow. Things looked mighty bleak in 1965, probably worse in early 1945, worse still in 1930, and if you get back into the 1800s and before, things really were pretty bleak compared to modern life. Doom and gloom run in cycles, this particular cycle may indeed have a really low bottom, but likely not as low as the most dire predictions make it out to be.

    Now, as for the "going nowhere but up" trajectory of US prosperity post WWII, yeah, that peaked a while ago, and IMO, we missed our first opportunity for escape velocity in the 1970s, and the last one somewhere in the 1990s. We're coming down, the only question is how far.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 27 2019, @12:30AM (1 child)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday August 27 2019, @12:30AM (#885870) Homepage
      > Not saying the predictions are wrong, ...

      > Since all the predictions are basically more noise than signal ...

      These predictions are *non-testable*. Even if they predict an absolute value for the futur GDP, then there's no way to know what it would have been. And I'm sure they're not even doing that, they're just Chicken-Lickenning ("Little") what's nothing more than a magic number, usable for little more than chanting.

      Om-percent, that's my prediction.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Reziac on Tuesday August 27 2019, @03:15AM

        by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday August 27 2019, @03:15AM (#885919) Homepage

        In the Actual Paper, I got as far as "using a stochastic growth model" and concluded it was congealed bullshit. "Stochastic" means essentially "randomly determined". They go on to say, " deviations of temperature and precipitation from their historical norms." So, which historical norms? the Roman Warm Period, or the Little Ice Age? Now, which one produced more human prosperity, especially in regions with a lot of subsistence agriculture??

        --
        And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.