←back to thread

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

(www.lancaster.ac.uk)
399 points gmays | 1 comments | 17 Nov 24 18:49 UTC | HN request time: 0.215s | source
Show context
oezi ◴[17 Nov 24 19:06 UTC] 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 #
Panino ◴[17 Nov 24 19:17 UTC] No.42166281[source]▶
> I was surprised how little it costs to stop climate change.

If you read Drawdown, you'll see that it doesn't cost money to stop climate change, it saves money.

https://drawdown.org/the-book

replies(3): >>42166369 #>>42166519 #>>42166530 #
baq ◴[17 Nov 24 19:27 UTC] No.42166369[source]▶
I don’t like that we’re even talking about money in this context. Money is almost fake, it’s right there in the ‘fiat’ name, yet that’s all most people care about.
replies(4): >>42166552 #>>42166569 #>>42166666 #>>42167479 #
1. PeterisP ◴[17 Nov 24 21:30 UTC] No.42167479[source]▶
In this context money is just a unit of measurement. If we say that we need more of a particular kind of infrastructure and reduce a particular kind of activity, etc, then the discussion requires being able to say how much of those (many!) things and we can quantify all of those in terms of dollars.