3 ms·
Not according to a bunch of Nobel Prize winning analysts at the Copenhagen Consensus. They said the effort/resources would be much better spent solving problems
by merpnderp 11y ago
Not according to a bunch of Nobel Prize winning analysts at the Copenhagen Consensus. They said the effort/resources would be much better spent solving problems for the poor today. Curbing CO2 by some small amount in 85 years will yield, by a large margin, the least benefit of money spent today.
This isn't a topic they dared to cover, but imagine the benefit to the hundreds of millions in Africa living without access to reliable cheap power if their countries could secure international loans for coal plants. Jobs, prosperity, food, industrialized living.
- zurn 11y agoHere's a debunking from one of the economists involved. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/22/climatechange.carbonemissions http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/22/climate...
- merpnderp 11y agoI got as far as "and they have the infrastructure to mitigate severe depletion of resources like fresh water and arable land." The IPCC has never stated there is a high probability of a loss of arable land and fresh water. They've stated it is a possibility with a high amount of unknowns. And given that CO2 barely warms the Earth, it is the water vapor feedback loop that is the mechanism for large amounts of global warming, it seems odd to believe the world's atmosphere would get wetter, but there would be less rainfall.