by Summary:
Climate change is often dismissed as a minor inconvenience. The belief that it will only cause a 1.4% drop in GDP is laughable. This figure is based on models that ignore tipping points. Tipping points are like the moment a dam breaks. A small crack can lead to catastrophic failure. When climate models fail to account for these tipping points, they underestimate the damage. Real-world impacts will be far more severe. Imagine a factory that relies on stable weather patterns. If climate change disrupts those patterns, production halts. Supply chains crumble. Jobs vanish. The economy doesn’t just lose a fraction of GDP; it faces a potential collapse. Studies show that a 3°C rise in temperature could lead to a 23% drop in global income by 2100. That’s not just a
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Climate change is often dismissed as a minor inconvenience. The belief that it will only cause a 1.4% drop in GDP is laughable. This figure is based on models that ignore tipping points. Tipping points are like the moment a dam breaks. A small crack can lead to catastrophic failure. When climate models fail to account for these tipping points, they underestimate the damage. Real-world impacts will be far more severe. Imagine a factory that relies on stable weather patterns. If climate change disrupts those patterns, production halts. Supply chains crumble. Jobs vanish. The economy doesn’t just lose a fraction of GDP; it faces a potential collapse. Studies show that a 3°C rise in temperature could lead to a 23% drop in global income by 2100. That’s not just a
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Mike Norman writes The 20 EMU Member States are not currency issuers in the MMT sense — Bill Mitchell
Mike Norman writes (II) Xu Gao’s case for Beijing to spend — Yuxuan JIA and BU, Xiaoqing
John Quiggin writes We or They
John Quiggin writes Monday Message Board
| Climate change is often dismissed as a minor inconvenience. The belief that it will only cause a 1.4% drop in GDP is laughable. This figure is based on models that ignore tipping points. Tipping points are like the moment a dam breaks. A small crack can lead to catastrophic failure. When climate models fail to account for these tipping points, they underestimate the damage. Real-world impacts will be far more severe. Imagine a factory that relies on stable weather patterns. If climate change disrupts those patterns, production halts. Supply chains crumble. Jobs vanish. The economy doesn’t just lose a fraction of GDP; it faces a potential collapse. Studies show that a 3°C rise in temperature could lead to a 23% drop in global income by 2100. That’s not just a number; it’s a warning sign. Ignoring it is like ignoring smoke before a fire. The right approach is to adopt realistic models. We need to prepare for severe economic impacts. This isn’t just about numbers on a spreadsheet. It’s about livelihoods, communities, and the very fabric of our society. The stakes are incredibly high. If we keep relying on flawed models, we risk everything. The economy will not just adapt; it will be devastated. We must act now to change our trajectory. Otherwise, we’re heading toward a future where the economy is unrecognizable. And that future will not be kind. Let’s not wait for the tipping point to arrive. We need to change course before it’s too late. |
Best GD economist on the planet.
Reported change = man made change + natural change + errors.
Scientists say the errors are now effectively zero.
Reported change is easy to find. Where's the graph of one or two other the others?
Ah yes, flawed modelling,
I'll ask my personal robot to research that as I'm too weak with hunger after King Charles' `Department of Work and Crematoriums ` (science now call AI (Austerity Inferno) has sanctioned me off all food at 60 for not finding X jobs where X is unspecified with an error of 2,000,000,000 units and 7 percent accuracy
Traditional models though look only at the total consumers spend and government. So if consumers have to spend more money because of the effects of climate change. That is great to economists.
Anything the consumers do that is good for them seem to be terrible for economic models. And for growth
Even Professor Steve can fall in the climate change scam.
Off the drugs buddy.
The whole purpose of environmental policies (mostly energy throttling in the name of undefined "climate change) almost always was to devastate the economy as a method to usher-in a New World Order.
Still waiting for Florida to be under water… it’s been suppose to be under water for 60 years now