From the conclusion:<p>"At a 3% per annum growth rate of CO2, a 2.5℃ rise brings world economic growth to a halt in about 2025."<p>I wonder if attempts by the scientific community to persuade world leaders of the severity of this problem would have been more successful if this had been more emphasized, rather than inches of sea level rise, wildlife extinctions, effects on poor populations, etc. If there is one thing political and financial leaders understand, it is their own dependence on continued economic growth - and continued <i>expectations</i> of economic growth.
Want to make a difference as a technologist?<p>Feel free to join these communities actively looking for support and with ongoing projects (that are alive):<p>- <a href="https://climateaction.tech/" rel="nofollow">https://climateaction.tech/</a><p>- <a href="https://techimpactmakers.com/" rel="nofollow">https://techimpactmakers.com/</a><p>- <a href="https://www.tmrow.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.tmrow.com/</a>
So very succinct.<p>"Timescale for significant impact, very roughly 50 years"<p>"1°C Rise (2005): Barely noticeable"<p>"2.5°C Rise (2038): Major economic consequences, Strong regional dependence"<p>"5°C Rise (2067): Globally Catastrophic effects"<p>The world has released more <i>since</i> that document was produced, than in the whole of human history before it.
Anyone living in Europe now will tell you the problem is of dire importance today. 2025 may have actually been a conservative estimate for the halt of global economic growth.<p>Today we have a massive heat wave in June which threatens half a billion people in the first world who have never needed air conditioning. France has already seen high temps of 115 f.<p>It boggles the mind to think the American government is actively accelerating this crisis.