Climate Impacts “To Cost World $7.9 Trillion” by 2050
Phys.org / November 20, 2019/ Patrick Galey

That’s far less than Warren’s and Sanders’ plans to provide free college plus free healthcare.
Plus debt forgiveness.
Per year.

In perpetuity.

With government bureaucracies to administer them.

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) . . .

Tee-hee!

Sorry. I’ll try to stop tittering at their laughable name, and pay attention.

Climate Change Resilience Index . . .

If it has a name, it must be respected.

measured the preparedness of the world’s 82 largest economies

Let’s face it, they really were interested in the #1 largest economy.
Or else why did they stop after 82?

and found that based on current trends the fallout

very objective nuclear bomb imagery

of warming temperatures would shave off three percent of global GDP by 2050.

“Found”?

There’s no debate concerning this model?

Are these the same economists who predicted the US economy would go into freefall if Trump was elected? Or are they other economists, who published opinions to the contrary?

I thought so.

Its analysis, which assesses each country’s direct exposure to loss as

“as”? Don’t you mean “if”?

Oh.

You don’t.

climate change brings more frequent extreme weather events, found Africa was most at-risk, with 4.7 percent of its GDP in the balance.

Differing from today, how?

In general, developing nations faired poorer in terms of resiliency than richer ones.

Differing from today, how?

“Being rich matters,” John Ferguson, EIU country analysis director, told AFP.

Bears repeating.

. . .

Of the countries evaluated, Angola stood to lose the most—as much as 6.1 percent of gross domestic product.

[Laughter]

The study put this down to a mixture of a lack of quality infrastructure, as well as its geographical exposure to severe drought, soil erosion and rising sea levels.

… and that’s all they could blame? In . . . Angola?

. . .

The analysis said rising temperatures meant the global economy was projected to hit $250 trillion by 2050, as opposed to $258 trillion with no climate impact.

I assumed the U.S. debt was projected to hit $250 trillion by 2050. I’m confused.

While the United States —- still the world’s largest economy at market rates —- is forecast to be one of the least impacted, the EIU noted that President Donald Trump’s policies represented a “temporary setback” in the climate fight.

But a temporary set-forward for Americans…

Russia was predicted to lose five percent of GDP by 2050 and will “suffer more than most other countries in the world from the negative effects of climate change”, it said.

But you’d just said that “Africa was most at-risk, with 4.7 percent of its GDP” in the balance. So why didn’t you warn us that Russia, losing 5.0 percent, would suffer worse?

This held true even when potential benefits in increased agriculture were taken into account.

No, no. Go on. I believe you: Greenland, Canada, Siberia, and Iceland becoming arable . . . I’m listening.

Melting permafrost—threatening infrastructure such as hydrocarbon pipelines —

I’ve been turning that phrase over in my mind for several minutes now — it is verbatim from their report — and I’ll be damned if it . . . wait; there’s more:

was forecast to be among the biggest drags on Russia’s economy in the coming decades.

Nope. Can’t imagine Russia would make repairs.

Nations agreed in Paris in 2015 to work to limit temperature rises to “well below” two degrees Celsius, and 1.5-C if possible.

They agreed to limit temperature rises to well below two degrees Celsius — but still agreeing to increases? Per year? Per decade? Per month? Per day? Per minute? Either poorly written; or not much to hang your hat on for the preservation of the human race, I’d say.

To do so, the global economy must rapidly decrease its greenhouse gas emissions — a source of controversy in developing nations which say their economic growth shouldn’t suffer after decades of fossil fuel use by wealthier countries.

Translation: The U.S., and only the U.S., must pay more to the rest of the world.

“The global economy is going to suffer so it’s not really a case of act now or act later. We need to do both,” said Ferguson.

Translation: The U.S., and only the U.S., must pay more to the rest of the world.

“Developing countries can’t do this on their own. There needs to be a coordinated global effort to deal with the impacts we are talking about.”

Translation: The U.S., and only the U.S., must pay more to the rest of the world.

[Repeat]

---