Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero Protagonist
I have to think that with our globally interconnected eoconomy, Europe, Canada and Russia would have a difficult time going it alone while the rest of the world burns. And of course there would be billions of refugees.
wait, even the most extreme scenario that got modeled still sees a much higher worldwide gdp in 2100 than now, and it's not even close.
Also about the refugees something really strange is going on with that estimate.
Let's take Bangladesh, one of the areas where the damage of climate change will be higher. Now Bangladesh gdp per capita is like 10 times what it was 45 years ago.
So, unless you think that climate change will reduce real gdp per capita more than 90% in Bangladesh from current levels (and lol if you do), emigration for economic reasons can't be higher than in the 70s right?
So if there are big waves out of Bangladesh it won't be for economic reason (this includes all decrease in quality of life that climate change Will generate, compared to now).
In which case what's the point? Why should the world be compelled to take them in if it wasn't compelled to do so when their life's were objectively worse some decades ago?
Most probable scenario is that Bangladesh instead of growing 6-7% per year will grow 4-5%. How is that supposed to be called a catastrophic scenario, you tell me. How is that supposed to call for moral imperatives of help, you tell me.
Bangladesh residents in 2049 will almost certainly have a higher pro capita gdp than today even in the worst climate change model. If that's the case there is really 0 justification to the refugee scare that I see cited very often.
It's a fearmongering approach explicitly intended to generate fear in western society and motivate people to heavily distort their economies in order to reduce climate change impact.
And that's especially the case in Europe, where the propaganda machine already managed to convince a lot if people of factual lies: climate change is true and occurring, but the idea that it is disastrous for Germany (for example) is an objective lie that no one in the left is admitting.
Let's see how much support for green taxes there would be if the population knew the truth, which is that most models predict that climate change is a net benefit for Germany and it's neighbours.
And of course this conversation isn't happening. Because the left can hide behind the silly negationist alt-right and justify their lies as the only response to the alt-right lies.
No1 sane of mind is a climate-denier. But the position of the climate-catastrophist is only little better. It's based on factual lies and science doesn't predict, for Europe, any aggregate cost from climate change.