3 ms·
By this measure agriculture is around 4% of the global GDP, so losing it entirely should not be an issue. The latest IPCC AR6 report paints a picture of a bare
by Comevius 5y ago
By this measure agriculture is around 4% of the global GDP, so losing it entirely should not be an issue.
The latest IPCC AR6 report paints a picture of a barely habitable planet by 2100.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
https://interactive-atlas.ipcc.ch/ https://interactive-atlas.ipcc.ch/
The model they used in the linked paper gives a 20% chance per 1C after 3C for large-scale discontinuity, otherwise economic and non-economic damage is just a quadratic function of the temperature.
Back in reality 3C would be Mad Max, dead oceans and unhabitable land. Meat scalpers instead of graphics card scalpers. We would still prevail if the atmosphere remains viable, but not as a civilization. Certainly not at this level of resource consumption.
- tuatoru 5y agoThe asymmetry is remarkable, too. A few years ago the argument was "preventing global warming would cost 0.1% of GDP, and that's totally unbearable." Edit: "a few years ago", hah. That was the late 1990s or thenabouts, when that's all it would have taken.