This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Economic impacts of climate change redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 May 2020 and 3 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yuxin L-.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Suggesting the addition under Further Reading of the following 2019 overview article on economic impacts of climate change. It covers economic research on effects of rising temperatures on economic growth and financial stability and the actions being taken by central banks internationally. (I am an editor with the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, which published the article.)
EditorMax of RichmondFR ( talk) 23:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
The lead section was recently rewritten, but it's very redundant: every paragraph starts with exactly the same phrase in bold text. Could it be paraphrased in a less redundant way? Jarble ( talk) 01:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
It seems relevant that as we see countries at war using their Economics that topics relating to money and climate would touch on military or population planning applications TlalocAxe ( talk) 05:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
There is a lot of overlap between this article on impacts and the one on economic analysis of climate change .
The "analysis" one is broader because it discusses mitigation policies and adaptation options and their costs and benefits, so it discusses different methods other than CBA. However I don't see very much difference in the framing because economic methods are needed to understand all of these economic impacts. The methods change depending whether you look at impacts alone (mainly these can be monetised) or at impacts with different mitigation policies (where costs are monetised but the benefits will be counted in emissions reductions, and are mainly using CEA) or adaptation (other appraisal methods are more likely to be used than CBA or CEA, having more to do with risk).
Also the "impacts" article - this article - is very outdated. The impacts lead is fairly good, but the main text is too outdated. There are many recent modelling studies reported in AR6 (CCB on Economics) - with economic impacts varying so widely they do not give any range for loss in global GDP. The lead currently mentions the swiss Re one at 11-14% but it might be good to also mention that there is low agreement between studies. It seems to depend highly on the method being used. The various methods reported in AR6 (structural, statistical, meta-analysis - the now state-of-the-art) are not currently mentioned in the article.
I'd like to propose to merge the "impacts" article into the "analysis" article. The lead text of "impacts" could be expanded and used in the section 'Economic impacts of climate change' and other essential sections integrated. The page size of "impacts" is 20kB and "analysis" is 27 kB (so they are both fairly short). It would be easier to update them together. Does anybody have any other thoughts ? Richarit ( talk) 12:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
This article was nominated for merging with Economic analysis of climate change on 1 August 2023. The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was Merge. |