It might be cheaper in the present, but we’re richer in the future, and can afford more, because we have invested the savings in the meantime. Article fails to

It might be cheaper in the present, but we’re richer in the future, and can afford more, because we have invested the savings in the meantime. Article fails to mention discount rates and like assumptions, so I am unable to compare and determine which trend is more powerful. Maybe the paper is better? > We find that discount rates of less than about 2% would make the perceived cumulative costs of most 1.5 and 2 °C scenarios overall less costly without overshoot (see Fig. 2c for the cumulative GDP losses and Supplementary Fig. 1.1-13 for the net present value (NPV) of the carbon price). Assuming higher discount rates on the other hand would favour relatively delayed mitigation with overshoot. Wow!!! 2% is pretty damn low in terms of discount rate assumptions. Contrary to the article, this paper would advocate against immediate action unless you hold some pretty extreme assumptions. Typical values for the discount rate are more like 3-5% in developed countries, and they can be especially high (like 7-15%) in developing countries. (The overall merit of intervention now vs later in reality, and not just in this paper, is left as an exercise to others.)