It seems reasonable to assume that a deepening climate crisis will focus minds and spur climate action. Unfortunately, new research by my coauthors and I suggests the exact opposite may happen: the worse climate change gets, the harder it could be to stop it. The end point of that process is a disastrous acceleration towards further warming.
Rather than being a purely theoretical exercise, we propose that we can begin to see signs of this slide away from climate action in the real world. For example, those nations most at risk from climate change can be caught in a sovereign debt âdoom loopâ whereby the damage caused by extreme weather reduces their abilities to repay loans and makes it harder to obtain desperately needed finance to both mitigate and adapt to climate change.
This feedback loop can derail climate policy over time: as debt servicing consumes growing shares of government revenue, climate investments are sidelined, and the country becomes increasingly exposed to climate change.
Increased warming can also increase conflict, thus undermining international cooperation required for mitigation. This is affected by a range of socioeconomic factors, such as inequality and political polarisation.
Interesting how this contradicts your previous post reflecting data up to Nov 2. Only two days apart yet the difference is profound. How does this happen so fast ?
Different axis, different baseline. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Interesting how this contradicts your previous post reflecting data up to Nov 2. Only two days apart yet the difference is profound. How does this happen so fast ?
No Answers, Only Questions is a tired tactic ol peep. You do have a way with scraping the bottom of the barrel for the tiniest barnacle while ignoring you're running out of air.
Interesting how this contradicts your previous post reflecting data up to Nov 2. Only two days apart yet the difference is profound. How does this happen so fast ?
Scientistsâ Secret Vote: A U.N. climate report legitimized carbon capture and storage, suggesting at least 99% of the CO2 would likely remain underground, despite scant empirical evidence.
Oil Industry Favorite: Fossil fuel companies have identified carbon capture as a climate solution that will allow their industry to survive, and have pushed the U.N. and scientists to study it.
Pattern of Underperformance: Decades later, major CO2 storage projects have suffered breakdowns, setbacks and cost overruns, while CCS remains central to climate models and policy.
The Stern review, in 700 dense pages full of graphs and data, is a model of transformative thinking. Using standard economic tools and methods, and in ways that other mainstream economists could understand, Stern made three key, and at the time radical, conclusions: that the costs of inaction on the climate were greater than the costs of action; that the climate crisis was a market failure; and that economic growth was compatible with cutting greenhouse gas emissions. (...)
Today, Stern says, if he were re-doing the review, he would place more emphasis on the role of nature, as the collapse of biodiversity around the world is a key economic and national security threat that has been grossly underestimated, and neglected as a result. (...)
The results are plain to see: governments refusing to act, markets over-valuing fossil fuel companies, investors punishing businesses that dare to prepare for a low-carbon world. Many insurance companies, supposedly the enforcers of probity in capital markets, are alleged to knowingly be fudging their figures to massage climate risk away, as the Guardian revealed this month.
