We are completely unprepared.

“We find that #India could become one of the first places in the world to experience heat waves that cross the survivability limit for a healthy human being sitting in the shade. Without targeted adaptation action, around 160-200 million people in India could annually bear a 5 percent chance of being exposed to a lethal heat wave as early as 2030, a ~40% cumulative likelihood over the decade centered on 2030.” — https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functions/sustainability/our%20insights/will%20india%20get%20too%20hot%20to%20work/will-india-get%20too-hot-to-work-vf.pdf

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I am finding it hard to take this seriously when they are banging on about India's struggles with covid and the WEFs assessments of what they are deficient in. They conflate humidity with air pollution, which seems like a sly way of saying they shouldn't be irrigating their crops. They say stakeholders are working to reduce pollution, which is a red flag, considering the term stakeholder is pretty loaded, and the only way forward for India is modernized appliances like air conditioning.

Generally, they spend this whole section extrapolating 1 or 2 data points without any qualification or reasonable explanation. This has the structure of a deceptive argument, they cite a couple facts to make it seem like this is well researched, but their analysis goes far past the point that can be argued by the data.

The McKinsey report is from 2020 and a lot has happened since then, thinking here especially of the events of March of 22’ for which there is a peer reviewed attribution study.

There is nothing in the observable data and modelling data to say that this assessment of the risks in India are wrong.

See

1) AR6 Synthesis Report https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf

2) March 2022 Attribution research https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/wp-content/uploads/India_Pak-Heatwave-scientific-report.pdf

This attribution report doesn't shy away from singling out climate change as the singular driver in a complex weather system, despite requiring multiple steps to connect the two. I won't pretend to be an environmental scientist, but showing how closely a single phenomena follows a model without justifying that model is how you get the field of economics dominated by Keynesians calling themselves "empiricists".

Its too convenient that this attribution report is picking a negative event to analyze, I reject this premesis. Put these models up against the weather in Virginia over 10 years and show me how they fit.

Well let’s hope for the sake of everything in the path of this that they and their data are wrong and you are right!

Wouldn’t that be just awesome!