SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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%.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 27 2019, @12:30AM (1 child)
> 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
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.