For a long time, I thought preserving the environment through reducing greenhouse gas emissions would improve human wealth as a result – via ecosystem services, not having to move agriculture and populations when rain patterns change and so on. But apparently, the IPCC estimates that the best scenario by far in terms of GDP per capita is the fossil-fueled development.[1] I was shocked to discover this. Why is this the case? Did the IPCC not correctly factor how quality of life would deteriorate in case of climate change? In light of this, why should we aim to reduce emissions at a significant detriment to human life? Is it because of unknown unknowns? Or solely to preserve endangered species? [1] – https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/ipcc-scenarios?facet=none&Metric=GDP
Story Published at: December 15, 2022 at 01:32PM
Story Published at: December 15, 2022 at 01:32PM