Shocking new study, accounting for data on long aftermath of extreme events, suggests the cost of emitting 1 ton CO2 could be as high as $ 3,000! "The study shows that by 2100, global GDP could be 37% lower than it would be without the impacts of warming" phys.org/news/2021-09-econom…

11:15 AM Β· Sep 15, 2021

11
287
48
648
Replying to @rahmstorf
+ GDP metrics equally account for costs of adaptation, damage & loss (meaning that what is mostly perceived as positive productive outcome is even lower). Shocking.
0
0
0
2
Replying to @rahmstorf
Aber die Wirtschaft! 😱
0
0
0
5
Replying to @rahmstorf @EcoEye
Can we please stop pretending there is any well-founded upper bound for the "cost" of emitting even a single tonne of CO2? That's just not how existential risk works...
1
0
0
10
Was there an opinion piece in the FT recently which discussed the potential for economic growth following societal collapse due to possibly extreme climate change?
1
1
0
2
Replying to @rahmstorf
Maybe we should consider stopping with growing the "global north" economies and focus more on increasing wellbeing for everyone!!
1
0
0
9
I donβ€˜t understand that β€žMaybeβ€œ πŸ€“
0
0
0
4
Replying to @rahmstorf
I've read the study (but not the computations). I don't understand it. Have they confused geometrical and linear growth?
1
0
0
1
I think there might be some incompetence in play, judging by this
0
0
0
0
Replying to @rahmstorf @m1ke_ger
Ich liebe ja dieses "could be". Dass der Schaden von einer Tonne CO2 sich auf 3000 $ bemisst, glaube ich gern. Aber das GDP "kΓΆnnte" bis 2100 auch ebensogut um 100 % sinken. Ich halte das sogar fΓΌr wahrscheinlich.
1
0
0
5
Anders gesagt: wie berechnet man den Preis des kompletten Zusammenbruchs einer Zivilisation?
1
2
0
8