4 ms·
From the article: All of this helps explain why IPCC anticipates climate change will have a modest impact on economic growth. By 2100, IPCC projects the global
by DocSavage 7y ago
From the article: All of this helps explain why IPCC anticipates climate change will have a modest impact on economic growth. By 2100, IPCC projects the global economy will be 300 to 500% larger than it is today. Both IPCC and the Nobel-winning Yale economist, William Nordhaus, predict that warming of 2.5°C and 4°C would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by 2% and 5% over that same period.
Question: Aside from what I assume are massive error bars on projecting economic growth due to scientific models 80 years in the future, I read that most of the models do not assume climate change impacts actual growth and therefore is exempt from compounding. On the other hand they use compounding to extrapolate growth. It seems odd that escalating climate damages as outlined in the reports would not impose a sizable tax. Anyone with more detailed knowledge of long-term economic projections care to comment on this?
- js8 7y agoSee also this response to Nordhaus claims by Steve Keen: https://theconversation.com/4-c-of-global-warming-is-optimal-even-nobel-prize-winners-are-getting-things-catastrophically-wrong-125802 https://theconversation.com/4-c-of-global-warming-is-optimal...
- ncmncm 7y agoAll these compounding projections assume business-as-usual. What will be the effect of global thermonuclear war on projections? How about megadeaths from famine? Or global transition to fascism in response to mass migration? What about all the frozen methane at the poles thawing, and the permafrost decaying, causing a runaway vicious cycle? All of these things make the sedate trend predictions nonsense, so all are routinely discounted as part of the projection. But in sum the risks of these events make the probability of the projection's accuracy nil.