Skip to main content

See the bold:

https://join.substack.com/p/gambling

Mann says that this evaluation “‘is a perfect example of where Nordhaus’ approach breaks down in the real world’”—Mann says that no “‘amount of wealth can rebuild an ice sheet’”, that “‘the dislocation of hundreds of millions of people will lead to massive unrest and conflict’”, and that it’s “‘impossible to accurately put a price tag on that’” unrest and conflict.

If you look at the below source text then you'll see the reason for my nagging paranoia that maybe he wasn't strictly referring to what the bold says that he was strictly referring to:

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-...mics-nobel-good.html

Nordhaus recently attempted to rebut these criticisms by evaluating the risks associated with the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which accounted for 40 percent of sea level rise last year and holds enough frozen water to lift oceans seven metres.

But scientists dismissed his peer-reviewed study as an exercise in self-justification.

"This is a perfect example of where Nordhaus' approach breaks down in the real world," said Mann. "No amount of wealth can rebuild an ice sheet, and the dislocation of hundreds of millions of people will lead to massive unrest and conflict."

"It is impossible to accurately put a price tag on that," he added.

Last edited by Andrew Van Wagner
Original Post

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×