Skip to main content

View Diary: New Study Predicts 6m Annual Deaths and 3% GDP Loss by 2030 - But That's Not the Real Story (30 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  money provides for mitigation (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, UltraAyla, Joieau

    I think the trick is that wealthy countries have enough money to mitigate the damage, while poor countries just suffer.

    Australia is certainly water limited, but they are able to afford water from desalinization. And if that doesn't work, they can afford to import food from other parts of the world. Sure, food gets more expensive for them, but nobody starves to death.

    •  Makes sense. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, Ashaman

      I'd be most worried about Southern India - in a planet that experiences several Celsius degrees of heating, that and other places like it could become seasonally uninhabitable.

      Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

      by Troubadour on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 10:30:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  right on. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ashaman

      That's the way to read this. Green doesn't mean good. I can list off dozens of scary, GDP-crushing climate impacts in the U.S., but many of even those impacts will be felt worst by the rest of the world. If California agriculture takes a hit, food costs more money in the U.S., but exports decline and the rest of the world starves - exactly like you said. Adaptive capacity is the key, along with the set of experienced impacts.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site