3 ms·
No, not mind-boggling at all. It's about a tenth of what is required to meet governments' signed-up-for targets for limiting global average temperature rise to
by tuatoru 3y ago
No, not mind-boggling at all. It's about a tenth of what is required to meet governments' signed-up-for targets for limiting global average temperature rise to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial.
For reference about 2% of global GDP is spent on new fossil fuel mining and drilling investment, and another 2-4% on the fuels (including refining).
- somsak2 3y agoI would have expected the ratio of $ spent on new fossil fuels vs. new solar to be a lot higher than 4. My mind is quite boggled.
- itishappy 3y agoA 10x increase is about 6 years at the current growth rate. That's mind-boggling. It can also be not enough. They're not mutually exclusive.
- oezi 3y agoThe figure I like to quote is that we need 2 to 5% of GDP spend per year to get to net zero by 2050. We already pretty much passed 1.5C anyway, right?
- tuatoru 3y agoYes. If we were spending 5% of global GDP on Solar and Wind now, there'd be a slim chance. Scaling up to that in six years, as a sibling comment claims, is way too late.