2100 is reasonably long term in my mind. It's an arbitrary milestone that a lot of people are using, as in these SSPs. The assessment that generated the SSPs p

2100 is reasonably long term in my mind. It's an arbitrary milestone that a lot of people are using, as in these SSPs. The assessment that generated the SSPs puts SSP5 at an estiamted 4.4 degrees C increase in global average temperatures by 2100. 4 degrees of increase is brutal for the climate and the knock on effects on global resources are what I am focussing on. Extreme weather, flooding, drought, knock on effects on our globalised supply chains, and the hidden costs to offsetting all of this. GDP could increase, but so would population displacement, need for disaster recovery, moving agriculture to changing climate zones and so on. SSP5 is generally considered a 'strange' approach to global social well-being, more of a 'what if fossil fuel fanatics tried their hands at global welfare, and just paid to mitigate the harm they create'. AKA a huge gamble and one that goes against human nature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Socioeconomic_Pathways https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Socioeconomic_Pathways https://www.greenfacts.org/en/impacts-global-warming/l-2/index.htm https://www.greenfacts.org/en/impacts-global-warming/l-2/ind...