2 ms·
Those are statements about the CAUSE of global warming, which doesn't say much about its effects (which are widely agreed to be dire). Knowing that 50 percent
by sdenton4 10y ago
Those are statements about the CAUSE of global warming, which doesn't say much about its effects (which are widely agreed to be dire).
Knowing that 50 percent is anthropogenic means that we can reasonably look for anthropogenic solutions. Though so far game theory has outweighed rationality...
- sien 10y agoThe latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group II has concluded that global warming of 2.5˚C would cost the equivalent to losing between 0.2-2.0% of annual income. Again, the actual consensus on damage is lower than what people imagine and scenarios propagated in grey literature by Environmental organisations.
- stouset 10y agoThat cost is primarily borne by those in undeveloped regions, where 0.2-2.0% of average global annual income can easily equal >= 100% of local income. Further, from the report (emphasis theirs): > It is very likely that globally aggregated figures underestimate the damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable impacts. It is virtually certain that aggregate estimates of costs mask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions, countries and populations. It's extremely disingenuous to provide the 0.2-2.0% figure without the massive footnote that this is a stark underestimate.
- sien 10y agoAlso the benefit of electricity is greatest when brought to places with low levels of development.