3 ms·

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

by CardenB 10y ago

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?

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

by 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?