2 ms·

The IPCC sadly had to accommodate economists, and they went one to do what economists do. However they got cordoned off in a separate section. Of course economi

The IPCC sadly had to accommodate economists, and they went one to do what economists do. However they got cordoned off in a separate section. Of course economic growth of Pakistan has been severely impacted by the floods they recently got, but hey what's evidence and anyway, it's all just a far away 'stan, right? The hard science sections tell it like it is, then the growth of GDP can be gamed in oh so many ways, maybe a beach that survived +2 warming and still looks good is worth visiting to the tune of 1000 more in $/vacation-day, right? Well then here is your GDP boost right there, all you got to have is someone still able to afford the 1000...

luckylion 4y ago
Should we just tell Pakistan to suck it and not develop? Should we just shut down all economic activity that isn't related to sequestering co2? It seems obvious that there's a tension between economic activity (aka living in a somewhat developed country) and resource usage.
- polotics 4y ago
  Is not, at all, what I wrote: of course Pakistan is in much need and well deserving of development, and again, I did not write it should not develop. It also has not put any significant portion of the CO2 that's now stuck in our aor, so the major hurdle to its development put up by climate change are doubly unfair. In terms of fairness the US and Europe should have stopped producing any more CO2 last century, China and India should be stopping about now...
- nukeman 4y ago
  No, it’s more along the lines of “build a high-speed rail line from Karachi to Islamabad” instead of encouraging further air travel. The corridor is around 1500 km long, so a line with an average operating speed of 320 kph would enable sub-5 hour journey times, and allow for a reduction or elimination of air services between the two cities (currently 105 per week).
SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
The IPCC are the people who wrote the source report in the first place! If you don't trust their analysis of climate change, I'm not sure what we're doing here - do you have some other source you think is more reliable?
- polotics 4y ago
  As I wrote: the IPCC is split up in sections, and one of them is economists doing their thang

luckylion 4y ago

Should we just tell Pakistan to suck it and not develop? Should we just shut down all economic activity that isn't related to sequestering co2? It seems obvious that there's a tension between economic activity (aka living in a somewhat developed country) and resource usage.

polotics 4y ago
Is not, at all, what I wrote: of course Pakistan is in much need and well deserving of development, and again, I did not write it should not develop. It also has not put any significant portion of the CO2 that's now stuck in our aor, so the major hurdle to its development put up by climate change are doubly unfair. In terms of fairness the US and Europe should have stopped producing any more CO2 last century, China and India should be stopping about now...
nukeman 4y ago
No, it’s more along the lines of “build a high-speed rail line from Karachi to Islamabad” instead of encouraging further air travel. The corridor is around 1500 km long, so a line with an average operating speed of 320 kph would enable sub-5 hour journey times, and allow for a reduction or elimination of air services between the two cities (currently 105 per week).

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago

The IPCC are the people who wrote the source report in the first place! If you don't trust their analysis of climate change, I'm not sure what we're doing here - do you have some other source you think is more reliable?

polotics 4y ago
As I wrote: the IPCC is split up in sections, and one of them is economists doing their thang