My thoughts on …inabilitycommunity.springernature.com/posts/climate-… Damages to economic activity also come from 100s of millions of refugees in a very, VERY short time. They drive sudden urbanisation and with it, societal upheaval. And in cross-border migration, they drive regional destabilisation and its
neighboring regions. Nationalists gain strength, close borders, grab power over economic decision making, nationalisation etc. In the process, all this heightens the sense of insecurity and that leads to less spending and fewer investments. Which increases real insecurity due to
closed companies and job losses.
The assumption by economists that societal upheaval from climate disasters and increased numbers of refugees in a VERY short time doesn't negatively affect trade and consumption, and can therefore be left out of their modelling? To me, it shows
The assumption by economists that societal upheaval from climate disasters and increased numbers of refugees in a VERY short time doesn't negatively affect trade and consumption, and can therefore be left out of their modelling? To me, it shows
how little they apply science principles, ie fact gathering, before they play dice. Also, the results aren't improved when economists choose only physicists to inform economic modelling.
How much damage economists have done with their buggy "science" is also apparent in lack of
How much damage economists have done with their buggy "science" is also apparent in lack of
research in the area climate impacts on trade, finance and human security. Why fund and do research in those areas if economists tell us that all is fine, eh?
That is precisely what economists did with hubris and playing🎲– it stymied important research:
That is precisely what economists did with hubris and playing🎲– it stymied important research:
https://twitter.com/anlomedad/status/1466682502261653504
And "relax the speed at which emissions reductions need to happen. This increases welfare." ??
Welfare increase by what standards and for whom??
It's another example for unproven assumptions and fake-news by economists which nonetheless grow roots in the minds of their audience.
Welfare increase by what standards and for whom??
It's another example for unproven assumptions and fake-news by economists which nonetheless grow roots in the minds of their audience.
Making & building infrastructure for decentralised renewable energy production raises wellbeing immediately – in electricity-poor regions, too, where the BULK of humankind lives. It also reduces requirement for NET and thus, increases welfare for later generations!
#EconObscene
#EconObscene
#Econobscene On that note, read this
It's another example of myopic economic narratives that aim to look sciency. And are taken as sciency bc they're published in NATURE, and are peer-reviewed by people who believe in the same misinformed narratives.
https://twitter.com/NatureClimate/status/1466718400240136198
It's another example of myopic economic narratives that aim to look sciency. And are taken as sciency bc they're published in NATURE, and are peer-reviewed by people who believe in the same misinformed narratives.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
