3 ms·
I would love to see the estimates you're talking about because, as I said (and linked) above the estimates I've seen are much more dire!
by aeturnum 3y ago
I would love to see the estimates you're talking about because, as I said (and linked) above the estimates I've seen are much more dire!
- oezi 3y agoThere are various studies from consultancies such as McKinsey, the IEA or national thinktanks (e.g. Fraunhofer in Germany) that have put out ballpark figures like these. Commonly the total is on the order of 100-300 trillion USD. Current global GDP is 100 trillion.
- aeturnum 3y agoI think the point of the reports in that I linked is that we don't avoid climate change by following that time frame. Instead, we'd spend 100-300% of GDP on avoiding old projections, while moving forward into more poorly understood territory. Ignoring the timeliness of a particular change has been a common error / delay tactic of groups that urge less expeditious responses. Obviously, unless you link these reports, I don't really know if that critique applies - but it is a common critique for plans with a longer time frame. Edit: I also want to add that any project that needs 100-300% of global GDP certainly qualifies as "one to two orders of magnitude bigger than anything we have done." Wikipedia puts the 1940 world GDP at 3,000 billion USD[1]. The manhatten project cost ~$2bn (0.06%). The whole war was estimated to cost the US ~$288bn (9.6%)[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product [2](unreliable but fine for a ballpark) https://www.whatitcosts.com/world-war-ii-cost-united-states-facts/ https://www.whatitcosts.com/world-war-ii-cost-united-states-...