,
5 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
As panic on climate change once again crescendos, it is perhaps worth remembering that we've been here many times before
Here in 1989, where the UN Environment Programme predicts disaster if we don't fix global warming before the year 2000
apnews.com/bd45c372caf118…
Here in 1989, where the UN Environment Programme predicts disaster if we don't fix global warming before the year 2000
apnews.com/bd45c372caf118…
And here, from 1982, where the executive director of the UN Environment Programme, warning that the world was only a couple of decades away from an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war
facebook.com/bjornlomborg/p…
facebook.com/bjornlomborg/p…
To be clear, global warming is a real problem, but nowhere near the panicky claims often heard: If we do nothing, the impact by 2100 will be equivalent to losing 2-4% of your annual income (in a world where you'll be 150-500% richer)
nber.org/reporter/2017n…
nber.org/reporter/2017n…
These numbers are the updated overview by the world's only Nobel Laureate climate economist, Nordhaus, based on the UN Climate Panel overview from 2013
Of course, we'd like to avoid paying 2-4%, but climate policies also cost, so important to find balance
Of course, we'd like to avoid paying 2-4%, but climate policies also cost, so important to find balance
— this is what Nordhaus has shown: we should set a moderate and rising, global CO₂ tax, which could limit global warming from 4.1°C to 3.5°C
Going to 2.5°C will be much more costly and 2°C and 1.5°C impossibly costly
doi.org/10.1257/pol.20…
Going to 2.5°C will be much more costly and 2°C and 1.5°C impossibly costly
doi.org/10.1257/pol.20…
