←back to thread

399 points gmays | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.216s | 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 #
tinco ◴[] No.42166311[source]
Only 1% of GDP is agriculture, yet 100% of society relies on agriculture for survival. Because we don't have food shortages right now, GDP is heavily slanted towards things that don't really matter. You can't take that sort of monopoly money and try to influence the real world, if it were that easy then governments would be changing gas prices to win elections a lot more effectively.

Not disagreeing that there should be a lot more funding of climate change reducing endeavors, I just don't think that GDP should/could be an anchor to base that on.

replies(2): >>42166390 #>>42166442 #
marcosdumay ◴[] No.42166442[source]
There's no immediate bottleneck for reducing fossil fuel consumption. More money will translate into more effect, at most delayed by some half of a decade for any foreseeable effort.

At some point we will find a series of bottlenecks. But up to a 30% reduction (with ~100% clean electricity) it's obviously clear, and it looks doable up to ~90% (electricity, transportation, heating, and some industry converted).

replies(1): >>42166691 #
tinco ◴[] No.42166691[source]
Yeah that sounds right, I'm just wondering where the materials and the labor come from. We don't just have 5% of GDP worth of those laying around, they're currently allocated to other things. Not saying it's impossible, but it's hard to estimate the repercussions.
replies(4): >>42166951 #>>42167028 #>>42168283 #>>42169095 #
ClumsyPilot ◴[] No.42166951[source]
> materials and the labor come from. We don't just have 5% of GDP worth of those laying around

You have to make up your mind, if you are concerned about real resources or fictional ones.

If we want to optimise for real resources we would round up all the people who’s job is to destroy real resources, like casino pit bosses and the managers of Prada and fast fashion that destroy clothing to create artificial scarcity.

And we would kick them out in the rain to do tree planting.

Climate change threatens a lot more than 5% of real reseouces - in fact what happens when the Middle East and American Midwest runs out of underground water reserves?

replies(2): >>42168373 #>>42185822 #
1. tinco ◴[] No.42185822[source]
Those are very weirdly specific examples that don't destroy much real resources at all. What resources does a casino pit boss destroy but time? And surely Prada has one of the smallest resources to money spent ratios you could imagine? Half a calf's worth of leather for a $10k bag?

Anyway, that's what my sort of point is. Much of the GDP is spent on dumb stuff like holding stocks, gold, art and Prada bags. When you divert a percentage of that to be spent on real resources it can have major effects. Kind of like how when leisure travel became affordable for regular people, suddenly air travel and cruise ships started to have an outsized effect on climate.