![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Some leading economists were asked about the consequences of glaobal climate change regarding agriculture.
William Nordhais of Yale, said, "Agriculture, the part of the economy that is sensitive to climate change, accounts for just three percent of national output. That means there is no way to get a very large effect on the US economy."
He was not the only one of the group who felt this way.
Wilfed Beckerman of Oxford said, "Even if net output of agriculture fell by 50 percent by the end of the next century, this is only a 1.5 percent cut in GNP."
What are these guys smoking? How can a 50% drop in food production not have an enormous effect on society in general and therefore the economy?
It makes me wonder if the question these guys were answering was loaded a certain way, or their answers taken out of context.
William Nordhais of Yale, said, "Agriculture, the part of the economy that is sensitive to climate change, accounts for just three percent of national output. That means there is no way to get a very large effect on the US economy."
He was not the only one of the group who felt this way.
Wilfed Beckerman of Oxford said, "Even if net output of agriculture fell by 50 percent by the end of the next century, this is only a 1.5 percent cut in GNP."
What are these guys smoking? How can a 50% drop in food production not have an enormous effect on society in general and therefore the economy?
It makes me wonder if the question these guys were answering was loaded a certain way, or their answers taken out of context.
