Title: For a long time, I thought preserving the environment through reducing greenhouse gas emissions would improve human wealth as a result - via ecosystem services, not having to move agriculture and populations when rain patterns change and so on.<p>But apparently, the IPCC estimates that the best scenario by far in terms of GDP per capita is the fossil-fueled development.[1] I was shocked to discover this.<p>Why is this the case? Did the IPCC not correctly factor how quality of life would deteriorate in case of climate change?<p>In light of this, why should we aim to reduce emissions at a significant detriment to human life? Is it because of unknown unknowns? Or solely to preserve endangered species?<p>[1] - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ourworldindata.org&#x2F;explorers&#x2F;ipcc-scenarios?facet=none&amp;Metric=GDP" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ourworldindata.org&#x2F;explorers&#x2F;ipcc-scenarios?facet=no...</a>
Upvote: