←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 | 2 comments | 17 Nov 24 18:49 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[17 Nov 24 19:11 UTC] No.42166228[source]▶
> 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.

replies(4): >>42166304 #>>42166434 #>>42166454 #>>42166522 #
marcosdumay ◴[17 Nov 24 19:38 UTC] No.42166454[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>42169345 #
1. YetAnotherNick ◴[18 Nov 24 02:58 UTC] No.42169345[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>42170737 #
2. Aachen ◴[18 Nov 24 08:32 UTC] No.42170737[source]▶
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