Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò: "Climate change will reduce future global income by about 19% in the next 25 years compared to a fictional world that’s not warming, with the poorest areas and those least responsible for heating the atmosphere taking the biggest monetary hit, a new study said." apnews.com/article/clim...

"Climate change will reduce future global income by about 19% in the next 25 years compared to a fictional world that’s not warming, with the poorest areas and those least responsible for heating the atmosphere taking the biggest monetary hit, a new study said." apnews.com/article/clim...

New study calculates climate change's economic bite will hit about $38 trillion a year by 2049apnews.com A new study says climate change will reduce future global income by about 19% in the next 25 years compared to a fictional world that’s not warming.

never understood why these articles don't link to the study? it's in Nature, Open Access. anyways, pretty sure it's this one: www.nature.com/articles/s41...

The economic commitment of climate change - Naturewww.nature.com Analysis of projected sub-national damages from temperature and precipitation show an income reduction of 19% of the world economy within the next 26 years independent of future emission choices.

the picture that appears in the thumbnail link is Figure 1, which predicts the effect of warming on income at different levels of emissions. sharp declines everywhere, but shallowest in Central Asia/Russia, Europe, and North America

The almost-invisible mitigation curve is pretty heart breaking. It's so small! It'd be so much less expensive!

Drives me nuts. Journalism's (nonexistent) citation standards always make me frustrated, but this particular type of not citing might be the worst.

Advertising team leaning on editorial to ensure links don't exit the site maybe? Anyway. Thanks for the link. :)

One of my crank takes is that the apocalyptic takes about climate change are actively harmful to mitigation — no, the planet is not in danger. No, the human species is not in danger. SPECIFIC humans, the poor, are in danger and our moral obligation is to their lives not some abstract Gaia nonsense.

yeah that's pretty nearby what I think - the likeliest scenarios are ones where the "planet" / human civilization survives but a lot of politically and economically vulnerable people do not, and that's already problem enough to demand course correction

Also I think that there absolutely are ways to engineer our systems to be less exploitative while also Doing Shit to combat the carbon economy. This is not the vengeance of a wrathful God, its human decision making. It’s politics! Do politics!

While as a director of an environmental defence organization I will draw the line at repeating “the species/planet are not in danger” I am greatly in agreement that climate dangers to people are directly proportional to their access to capital. Which does offer hope along these lines.

The problem as always is that “species” and “planet” don’t denote to people a genotype and a spinning ball of rock, they devote systems and those systems are in immediate danger!

Those systems as we understand them today, certainly. That’s not the sense that the doomers use the terms, in my experience.

Eh the language is important and the human species has survived much more severe environmental catastrophes with much less technological ability to adapt. We’re a weed species, like rats.

Yeah I’m not convinced the genotype will be easy to extinguish but buddy we sure are driving (whipping!) the conditions that make it nontheoretical

Pretending that the mote of recycling does anything while ignoring the beam of systemic exploitation … man, I dunno.

Heck, even the economic order and progress survives, but correct here.

I think all this is true. I also wonder if maybe the veering toward apocalyptic takes is because relatively comfortable first-world residents can’t be bothered to care that much about the poor in other countries, so there’s been a mad dash to find ways that it will impact them directly.

But yes when you’re actively convincing an entire generation that there’s no point in voting because we’re already past the point of fucked as a species you are actively harming mitigation efforts.

Oh I think this is absolutely part of it. The end times? Well I can’t be expected to do anything it’s all just lulz

Honestly, it's probably just boredom with their lives, which is not an easy thing to solve.

I would echo this. Humanity is hardy and can survive, but we're probably going to kill most of the species to get there.

the choice is 1) invest heavily now in mitigation; costs oligarchs and shareholders money 2) do nothing, let millions die, start wars, and the poor around the world bear the costs; does not cost oligarchs and shareholders money there was never really a choice

Eh, it's not a crank take, it's just the correct take on what's likely to happen.

That’s optimistic. The poor are in MORE danger, they do and will suffer more and earlier, but in almost every likely scenario, the planet will not be habitable to any humans in a few generations, unless end capitalism yesterday, which we won’t.

Immediate example: the folks in Tuvalu, who are facing losing their entire country. Their losses are well underway, yet they’re getting a muted “whoops, sorry about the sea swallowing you guys” shrug, since god forbid we stop burning unlimited fuel to save the homes of some islanders somewhere.😑

This is a good and correct take

Post