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This discussion has been archived.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, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 26 2019, @07:53AM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 26 2019, @07:53AM (#885561)

    climate people claim to be experts on weather and climate

    What is the next thing you will say? How nuclear scientists claim to be experts in nuclear things? Or how engineers claim to be experts in engineering things? Or how plumbers claim to be experts with the pipes?

    This is like a dentist telling you that it will cost a fuckton more and will never be the same if you ignore that toothache because you'll lose your tooth, but you say "fuck you! you have a crystal ball or something?"

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Insightful=5, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 26 2019, @08:10AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 26 2019, @08:10AM (#885567)

    I have the Theoretical Degree in Physics!

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 26 2019, @08:11AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 26 2019, @08:11AM (#885568) Journal

    2019 (current year) minus 80 = 1939. Hey, isn't that like, sometime real close to the Second World War? And, like, Hitler, and Mussolini, and stuff like Pearl Harbor, and the Invasion of Poland?

  • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by DeathMonkey on Monday August 26 2019, @05:23PM (4 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday August 26 2019, @05:23PM (#885716) Journal

    Yes, that about sums it up. Conservatives are opposed to all expertise now.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday August 26 2019, @05:51PM (3 children)

      by hemocyanin (186) on Monday August 26 2019, @05:51PM (#885729) Journal

      I think many people -- left, right, and center -- are often skeptical about experts because time has shown that a not insignificant amount of expertise is ideologically driven. One of the risks of making everything political (like ejecting people of certain political affiliations from restaurants as an example), is that everything becomes tribal, including science and once science is ideological/tribal, it isn't science. It is propaganda. No side is innocent of this sin.

      • (Score: 2, Redundant) by DeathMonkey on Monday August 26 2019, @06:41PM (2 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday August 26 2019, @06:41PM (#885755) Journal

        That's some grade A "both sides" bullshit. In a CLIMATE CHANGE thread you're going to claim that science denial is equally distributed?

        • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday August 26 2019, @07:21PM

          by hemocyanin (186) on Monday August 26 2019, @07:21PM (#885771) Journal

          Yes. Once you go tribal you must accept the consequences which are primarily, being distrusted. I personally tend to think that at least some of the climate change we are seeing is human generated. I don't think it will be the end of the world however. If people are one thing, it is adaptable. The world will change, perhaps for the worst and many may die, but the human species isn't going extinct any time soon -- we've managed to survive in every climate zone from the Arctic to the Sahara, and it will continue to be so. The "end is nigh!" hyperbole on this topic is really over the top. Honestly, if NY City goes the way of Atlantis, it actually is not the end of the world (and this is true whether you are sad to see it sink into the mud, or glad).

          As for Democrats and tribal research, the gun control debate is your albatross.

        • (Score: 4, Touché) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 27 2019, @12:37AM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday August 27 2019, @12:37AM (#885871) Homepage
          If the 97% "consensus" are 90% skilled and 10% frauds or fucknuts, and the other 3% are 1% skilled and 99% frauds or fucknuts, and they output at equal rates, then the consensus side is responsible for 75% of the bullshitting, even on that assumption of being 90x more likely to be skilled.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves