Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to the EIU, climate change will cause tremendous economic harm, but the USA and Europe will be least affected.
The Asian economy will be 2.6% smaller by 2050 due to lack of climate resilience
Wednesday 20 November 2019
- The Asia-Pacific economy will be 2.6 per cent smaller in 2050 according a new framework developed by The Economist Intelligence Unit (The EIU), with developing countries in the region set to be the most affected.
- The EIU expects economic losses in every year leading up to 2050, with the risk that further losses could be seen if policy effectiveness is not improved.
- According to The EIU’s framework, Africa is the least resilient region to the impact of climate change (4.7 per cent smaller), followed by Latin America (3.8 per cent), the Middle East (3.7 per cent), Eastern Europe (3 per cent) and the Asia-Pacific.
- North America (1.1 per cent smaller) and Western Europe (1.7 per cent) display the most resilience and are likely to see the least impact economically because both regions are richer and more prepared to tackle climate change from an institutional standpoint.
- The EIU’s research shows that being rich is an advantage to tackle climate change, but institutional quality matters, too.
…
The EIU’s research shows that being rich is an advantage, but institutional quality matters, too. Institutional quality is a major determinant of long-run economic growth, but The EIU’s results also point to the importance of institutional quality for minimising the impact of climate change. Poor institutions, therefore, can simultaneously harm economic growth and exacerbate the negative impacts of climate change.
…
The report is available here, if you are prepared to provide some intrusive personal information.
I haven’t read the report (I didn’t want to provide that intrusive personal information), but I guess we now understand why “climate losses” are projected to be so severe in Africa, compared to the USA and Europe; most Africans don’t enjoy the benefits of a wealthy fossil fuel powered economy.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rubbish! EVERY COUNTRIES GDP will be through the roof ! In our happy, good-time, clean green future! We will create jobs to tear down and rebuild every building to be as cosy as an igloo with a 12” blanket of snow. Every smokestack power plant will be turned into 10,000 acres of solar panels, with thousands of employees paid to sweep the dust off the surface. And since laborers will be paid the EXACT same amount as a neurosurgeons … everyone will be RICH$$€€££¥¥ !!! Yeayy!!! In fact money will be irrelevant in our Star Trek future … so who cares about GDP’s? Everyone will be provided anything they want, and everyone will work for free! What a wonderful green utopia we will all be living!! Of course Al Gore will STILL have the nicest mansion in all of Santa Barbara … where the oceans will NEVER rise … because Al’s living there.
Oh boy! I can’t wait … *sheesh*
“The Asia-Pacific economy will be 2.6 per cent smaller in 2050”
Send the Marshall Plan aid to me and I’ll distribute it appropriately for Oz or we’ll have to declare war on America-
What they are trying to tell us, is that the countries that live closest to outside influences subject to weather are going to suffer the most… While the wealthiest countries will set their thermostats and forget about outside weather.
In other words, they’re desk jockeys inventing falsehoods for countries where:
1) They believe the disadvantaged will love the attention and the offers of help.
2) That no-one will check their predictions, if the global warming actually occurs.
I notice that they do not describe the deprivation wealthiest countries are expected to incur when they divest themselves of everything fossil fuel derived and powered.
My experience in life tells me futurology is an imprecise activity.
You have to be pretty ignorant of nature, to think you are in a position to add decimal points to your forward gaze.
Cast your minds back thirty years. We were still sending rolls of film off to be developed. Police business directors and millionaires were the only people with mobile communication. Road atlases were still relevant for helping you know where you were.
I am certain to four decimal places, my predictions of the future are correct. I just struggle to define which prediction to go for…
The traditional view of economists is perhaps worth repeating.
If you put all the economists in the world end to end, they would never reach a conclusion.
How accurate are GDP forecasts going out to 2050?
Not even remotely close.
This is a total waste of time. If climate change is real, it will probably have some net negative effect on GDP by 2050. That’s all we can say, the sum total of our knowledge. The idea we can forecast losses tone decimal point is absurd , perhaps fraudulent.
All sensible people know this yet the nonsense continues.
The study is ridiculous in its concept that we know much of what the world and climate will look like in 2050. The percentages presented are so futile that they are meaningless. Why bother people with guesses,they may make an equally good guess for themselves.
So what’s easier to model? The global economy or the global climate?
Pity the poor Economist – the newspaper that is; it used to be an essential read – now…
As already known by other doomsday conspirators “Economic Intelligence Unit” posts distilled water rising up against the evening sun.
The last opportunity for doomsday conspirators to insinuate something like “pollution” while flue gas cleaning for industrial plants is the norm today.
Anyway “Economic Intelligence Unit” could wise up at VOEST-Alpine:
https://www.voestalpine.com/blog/en/commitment/voestalpine-and-water/