4 ms·

For those of us challenged by so many zeros, that's about $13,000 per human being, ostensibly to be spent over the next 15 years. For the US, that'd be a cost

For those of us challenged by so many zeros, that's about $13,000 per human being, ostensibly to be spent over the next 15 years. For the US, that'd be a cost of ~$4.8tn, or, just over $300bn annually for the next 15 years. Spending that much would represent an increase of about 8% of the US government budget for 15 years, and have to be funded by raising taxes, cutting spending elsewhere, or borrowing. On the plus side, it would all get injected into the economy and put many people to work (like some of those disenfranchised men who were a topic yesterday [and the disenfranchised women who apparently weren't] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12649106 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12649106 ). And it would hopefully thereby reintroduce inflation and the fed would raise interest rates so we could move back to a less abnormal economy. Unless, of course, that we're already in the new normal.

CardenB 10y ago
That sounds like a no brainer. I'd be interested in hearing the other side of this argument.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- 11thEarlOfMar 10y ago
  One consideration, and perhaps an economist can weigh in, using the same analysis for India, they'd need to spend a total of US$16tn. That's 55x their annual budget for the entire country (I think, (Rp. 197,80,60 Crore = US$293Bn?). It's completely un-affordable. However, for example, the cost of labor is also a fraction of what it is in the US, and, the way the money needs to be spent is likely different, so more digging needs to be done that I have time for now. The point being that many countries simply can't afford to do their 'fair share' today, and if it's going to be done globally, wealthier countries will have to pay more. I'm too lazy to Google up the annual budget of all the nations on the entire planet, but I have a suspicion it's fraction of the cost of doing this infrastructure overhaul.
  - rgbrenner 10y ago
    I don't think per capita is the right way to calculate this. We're talking about infrastructure spending, and if poor countries have less infrastructure, then they also have less that needs to be upgraded. They also produce fewer green house gasses... and it would make sense that more money would need to be spent where those gasses are emitted (ie: not in poor countries). And they use less energy, which means fewer plants that need to be replaced. In the summary [0], it says they think spending needs to increase from 3.4T/yr to 6T/yr... a 70% increase. I think a more accurate estimate would be to take current spending in India, and increase it by 70%. That would mean the US would shoulder a much larger portion of this increase.. Which makes sense, since we're one of the largest emitters of green house gasses. 0. http://newclimateeconomy.report/2016/executive-summary/ http://newclimateeconomy.report/2016/executive-summary/
- EXueBRJ9d 10y ago
  Doesn't seem fair to charge per capita. Maybe by GDP? The gross world product is ~$78T. If spread over 15 years, it's about 8.7% of output yearly. Or maybe by share of total carbon produced historically?
nabla9 10y ago
For comparison, total cost of Iraq, Afghan wars is $4 - $6 trillion https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study...

CardenB 10y ago

That sounds like a no brainer. I'd be interested in hearing the other side of this argument.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
11thEarlOfMar 10y ago
One consideration, and perhaps an economist can weigh in, using the same analysis for India, they'd need to spend a total of US$16tn. That's 55x their annual budget for the entire country (I think, (Rp. 197,80,60 Crore = US$293Bn?). It's completely un-affordable. However, for example, the cost of labor is also a fraction of what it is in the US, and, the way the money needs to be spent is likely different, so more digging needs to be done that I have time for now. The point being that many countries simply can't afford to do their 'fair share' today, and if it's going to be done globally, wealthier countries will have to pay more. I'm too lazy to Google up the annual budget of all the nations on the entire planet, but I have a suspicion it's fraction of the cost of doing this infrastructure overhaul.
- rgbrenner 10y ago
  I don't think per capita is the right way to calculate this. We're talking about infrastructure spending, and if poor countries have less infrastructure, then they also have less that needs to be upgraded. They also produce fewer green house gasses... and it would make sense that more money would need to be spent where those gasses are emitted (ie: not in poor countries). And they use less energy, which means fewer plants that need to be replaced. In the summary [0], it says they think spending needs to increase from 3.4T/yr to 6T/yr... a 70% increase. I think a more accurate estimate would be to take current spending in India, and increase it by 70%. That would mean the US would shoulder a much larger portion of this increase.. Which makes sense, since we're one of the largest emitters of green house gasses. 0. http://newclimateeconomy.report/2016/executive-summary/ http://newclimateeconomy.report/2016/executive-summary/
EXueBRJ9d 10y ago
Doesn't seem fair to charge per capita. Maybe by GDP? The gross world product is ~$78T. If spread over 15 years, it's about 8.7% of output yearly. Or maybe by share of total carbon produced historically?

nabla9 10y ago

For comparison, total cost of Iraq, Afghan wars is $4 - $6 trillion https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study...