“The bad will be there no matter what, while the good requires major efforts,” says Vladimir Kattsov, director of Russia’s Voeikov Geophysical Observatory.
—The Economist in ‘Why Russia is ambivalent about climate change’
He’s talking about the potential benefits of climate change to Russia—opening of Arctic route and availability of Tundra lands for farming—versus the threats—more frequent droughts, floods and crop failures in current farmed areas.
Today, electric two-wheelers are so common in China that they account for 80% of all the greenhouse-gas emissions avoided by the use of electric vehicles—in the entire world.
Neither the signing of the Paris agreement nor its ratification a year later had an impact on global energy stocks, according to a working paper by Thomas Sterner and Samson Mukanjari of Gothenburg University, perhaps because these events had already been priced in. Or, just as likely, markets never believed the commitments.
The Economist: Markets may be underpricing climate-related risk
The farmers know something is happening to the weather, but the words “climate change” have become politically charged in a place where, like much of rural America, conservative politics dominate.
In the field, looking at his withering crop, Somerfeld was unequivocal about the cause of his damaged crop – “climate change.” But back at the bar, with his friends, his language changed. He dropped those taboo words in favour of “erratic weather” and “drier, hotter summers” – a not-uncommon conversational tactic in farm country these days.
Use my marker 