Basically, correlate that with a map of GDP per capita.
But to be completely honest I just got fired up as I found (and still find) your comment in bad taste. If you are a rice farmer on the coast of Bangladesh or similar then I apologize. One can argue back and forth about economy, but altering the sea level without compensation to those who loose their land is not fair.
As for what I really believe I think a lot of mass production can be kept, and also noone is proposing to scrap ships or global trade overnight. Proposals for fixing global warming abound and is generally to gradually tax for emissions caused (ie put price tag on externality). This will then drive the economy towards less polluting alternatives where it is easiest.
That is not a "proposed terrible thing for everyone" in the same way that when OPEC doubles the oil price the economy does move on and adapt.
E.g. in my country of Norway some fish gets sent to China for packaging and then it gets shipped back where it came from. Eliminating that indirectly through increased shipping costs means some increased price in frozen fish to the consumer, but also more local jobs.
In the end "end of global trade and mass production" is extremely simplistic. It is all about how well the world economy will do with or without.
And there are studies on that, so that either of us don't have to rely on our gut. And they show the effects of climate change on the global
economy to be devastating when it finally hits. It is not the lesser evil at all.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...
Basically, correlate that with a map of GDP per capita.
But to be completely honest I just got fired up as I found (and still find) your comment in bad taste. If you are a rice farmer on the coast of Bangladesh or similar then I apologize. One can argue back and forth about economy, but altering the sea level without compensation to those who loose their land is not fair.
As for what I really believe I think a lot of mass production can be kept, and also noone is proposing to scrap ships or global trade overnight. Proposals for fixing global warming abound and is generally to gradually tax for emissions caused (ie put price tag on externality). This will then drive the economy towards less polluting alternatives where it is easiest.
That is not a "proposed terrible thing for everyone" in the same way that when OPEC doubles the oil price the economy does move on and adapt.
E.g. in my country of Norway some fish gets sent to China for packaging and then it gets shipped back where it came from. Eliminating that indirectly through increased shipping costs means some increased price in frozen fish to the consumer, but also more local jobs.
In the end "end of global trade and mass production" is extremely simplistic. It is all about how well the world economy will do with or without.
And there are studies on that, so that either of us don't have to rely on our gut. And they show the effects of climate change on the global economy to be devastating when it finally hits. It is not the lesser evil at all.