Humans have caused 1.5 °C of long-term global warming according to new estimates

> investment will likely bring in a positive return on investment because it reduces the negative climate impacts

There is a demographic conflict of interest between those who will be alive in 2050 and those who will not. The long-term gains are difficult to deny. The short-term costs, however, will be massive.

There's a plutocratic incentive to blame plutocratic problems on demographics. It fits neatly into their divide and conquer strategy.

That's why mass media is so keen to blame everything on your mom ("boomers"), along with immigrants, robots, woke mind viruses, etc.

Most of those not alive in 2050 will have children and grandchildren whom they expect to be alive by then.

2% of the GDP is technically massive, but really, fuck anybody that wants to throw the future generations under the bus to save that.

And no, I won't be around by 2050.

The price of renewables has plunged to be cheaper than fossil fuels, battery tech is improving while prices are dropping, new jobs are created, etc, etc.

Making these changes are investments with real payoff in the near term.

The real impediment is that fossil fuels have made some people incredibly rich, and they are actively fighting these changes to protect their income.

> The price of renewables has plunged to be cheaper than fossil fuels

Is there a source for this? If you're referencing LCOE, remember that does not account for storage costs for intermittent power sources (wind, solar) so it's an incredibly misleading number.

GDP is a number without lot of meaning. Better thing to compare is the percentage of tax revenue. Total tax revenue of the world is $14.8T. So you need more than 30% relative increase in taxation.

First hit on google: https://gasoutlook.com/analysis/u-s-renewable-energy-beats-f....

Roughly parity for LCOE once storage is added.

Battery prices continues to drop and in short order it will be flat out cheaper with storage included: https://rmi.org/the-rise-of-batteries-in-six-charts-and-not-...

Add to that investments in the national grid and general energy efficiency it's doable: https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/100-percent-clean-electricity-...

Again, the only reason to not pursue this is to keep the fossil fuel companies profits flowing, and that isn't very compelling.

Keep in mind that most countries subsidise fossil fuels so that energy and transportation remains cheap and drives the economy — or at least that's the logic I hear, idk if it actually works that way

By not doing that, you free up quite a bit of tax money. I can't imagine it's the whole 30% but it would bring it down. Emissions tax would be another way to fund this figure at the same time as having corporations find ways to reduce emissions

From your link:

> The Lazard study looked at the “cost of firming,” which consists of building extra capacity to back up solar and wind, for example, leading to an increase in total costs. When included, the economic advantage for solar and wind over gas narrows considerably, and in some cases gas at the low end of the cost curve beats out “firm” solar and wind projects, particularly in California where costs of firming are higher.

> The headline LCOE costs look really striking for solar and wind, but when those firming costs are included, renewables “do not look as low-cost as the first LCOE figures imply,” Patiño-Echeverri said.

There doesn't need to be a fossil fuel boogeyman behind every decision to continue the status quo. Sometimes the math is the math. Hopefully that will change in the future.