Thread by @anlomedad

Words we don't want to see in a paper on EU climate impact risks in intl. trade, finance and EU society: Nascent or embryonic research area.
Yet here we are:sciencedirect.com/science/articl… So EU piles up trade agreements, thus expanding risks, but won't request & include risk research?!

So what's sciencedirect.com/science/articl…?
It's a grainy ultrasound😁of the embryonic research area. Three teams review existing lit. on #climaterisks in EU society, intl. finance and trade and enrich the findings w/ new data.
FYI: search for #climaterisks only gets 29 hits on Twitter🤯

Wrt trade they state
"we align the contribution of imported material with EU27 primary production, i.e. removing any processed material production that may itself depend on imported material"
Dangerously simplified. It makes us blind precisely IN the context of globalised trade:

When China's lower magnesium production closes a car factory in Zwickau, E-Germany, and leads to increased far-right voters, it would not appear in their research on trade or society. But it's a real climaterisk, by itself worsening climate change bc "conservatives" deny action.

Metal imports are mentioned, but risk exposure for the deep-industrialised EU, finely meshed with all🌍regions, is ignored. Instead, the short trade chapter deals only with food items. Here too, non-processed commodities only. Oh, and 5 sentences on ports in Holland and Belgium.

Yes, we can do without car seats, smartphones, music streaming and railway signals, when metal imports falter. But w/o jobs?
(And yes, droughts destroy harvests in larger regions than heavy rains do.) But🇨🇦floods cause clusterfcks and are modelled to grow to historic proportions

(And if you're interested in sourcing metals for the green transformation, supply and demand – and – if left to "The Market" – price hikes adding obstacles to timely delivery of Rockström's Carbon Law,
have a look here

https://twitter.com/anlomedad/status/1463827686795718659

Okay. Next chapter: Human security.

"some papers articulate a link between droughts and/or decreased rainfall and increases in conflict and political violence, although this is at the sub-national rather than interstate level"
Uhm? EU loves oppressive regimes for staving off refugees🇹🇷🇱🇾, Frontex murders refugees.

The rest of the chapter lists papers & data wrt migrants from world regions to EU; why, from where, and where to refugees have been trying to enter EU. "Political violence" is not attributed to EU. And other risks to human security in EU from climate change don't exist at all..🥂

The chapter EU finance seems to see actual risks only outside EU which cd then hit EU organisations indirectly. The literature review is on insurance and re-insurers only. Nothing wrt Moodys devaluation of countries (analog Covid), "investors" abandoning failed states, banks,...

The sub-chapter "Finance risk: Data insights" lists $ amount of EU organisations' investments elsewhere and some info in which sectors these are in. Missing is an evaluation of which investments might see risk exposure, where, and why. Also: inner-EU finance faces no risks? yay🥂

The last chapter was the one I was most interested in. It sketches the interconnectedness of climate clusterfcks based on actual drought in🇦🇷 which lowered their soy production. We need many, many tales of interconnectedness to train our brain to intuit nonlinearity and messiness

Most of my frustration is with my own limitation to intuit clusterfcks and if I see them, to communicate clearly what feels so multi-dimensional. The constraint of grammar and punctuation, the foggy unknowns of the addressees' associations with my words make me ache for new tech:

The scenario plays in 2050 under SSP3 conditions. SSP3 is titled"national rivalries", I believe? Hence, Argentina has nationalised all agriculture by 2050 – and hence, EU "investors" have 0 stock, and hence, no direct risk from failed soy harvest. But indirect consequences occur.

<BeginRant>
#climaterisks a nascent, embryonic research area...

If not on research, based on what DID @EU_Commission and member states deny 1C or 1.5C in Copenhagen 2009,
and to this day, push for and act in line with over 2C. Was their strategy based on ... a game of dice?

Until when did EU believe, the fake-Nobel recipient Nordhaus was right with his DICE game and climate change impacts would be marginal? Or do they still believe it? Gawd, we need to get rid off pencil-pushing, one-dimensional "thinkers" in @EU_Commission.

Climate risks didn't suddenly emerge in Nov 2019 when @EUparliament declared the climate emergency. When did EU-financed research in EU climate risks begin?
Is @EU_Commission climate-aware today? Thank God, Trump, and the Belgians for putting TTIP and CETA on hold.🙏 <endRant>

I wasn't expecting to be so disappointed by the paper. I was really looking forward to having the time reading it since it was announced

https://twitter.com/Cascades_EU/status/1465335205552664582

Shocking how EU climaterisks has seen so little research, ie funding?, that the authors call it nascent and embryonic!