←back to thread

399 points gmays | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.509s | source
Show context
oezi ◴[] No.42166179[source]
Looking into the numbers a couple if months ago I was surprised how little it costs to stop climate change.

On the order of 100-200 trillion USD. Which is roughly 100-200% of global yearly GDP. Or 2-5% of yearly GDP until 2050. This could well be provided by printing money at all the federal reserve banks.

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

Without such investments the downstream costs in climate change adaptation will be very expensive

replies(15): >>42166197 #>>42166228 #>>42166244 #>>42166268 #>>42166281 #>>42166295 #>>42166298 #>>42166311 #>>42166377 #>>42166407 #>>42166458 #>>42166521 #>>42166737 #>>42167052 #>>42167400 #
patrickhogan1 ◴[] No.42166521[source]
how do you spend it?
replies(1): >>42166703 #
1. oezi ◴[] No.42166703[source]
This is about spending to replace CO2 emitting technologies in electricity production, transport and housing to net-zero sources.

I recall the report mentioned that societies already spend more in GDP per year to adapt to climate change (e.g. building more AC units) than it would cost to mitigate climate change.

replies(1): >>42167202 #
2. patrickhogan1 ◴[] No.42167202[source]
Replacing CO₂-emitting technologies is already happening. To argue for this plan would require proving at least the following:

1. Spending Wisely: Invest in technologies that work and also do not introduce more problems.

2. Trusting Who Spends: Governments or others must use funds on solving the issue (not just giving money to cronies).

3. Global Cooperation: Countries working together (does Russia who sees warming as helpful comply).

4. Dealing With Inflation: The plan should address the inflation it causes, as it will raise living costs for people already struggling.

5. Better Use of Funds: Proving this use of funds is better than spending on other global issues.