> So Americans, Europeans, citizens the other rich countries, and
> rich citizens of the poor countries will all oppose having their wealth
> reduced. Besides there is no certainty that we have only 10 years
> to prevent humanity being wiped out in the year 2100, so it could
> be argued that another ten years won't make much difference, and
> we should wait "in case anything turned up" as Mr. Micawber was
> used to saying.
I think it is as good as certain that climate change is not sufficient
cause for humanity to be wiped out.
Even if there was a 10% chance of that, I'd expect massively different
behaviour.
You should just accept the straightforward explanation, the vast
majority of the population is not convinced that climate change is
gonna wipe us out.
The IPCC scenarios assume a very wealthy world in 2100, with world per
capita GDP higher than present US per capita GDP. Based on that, it's a
matter of GDP growing slightly more slowly, rather than anybody
becoming poorer.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
