4 ms·
Climate damages by 2050 will be 6 times the cost of limiting warming to 2°
- Rinzler89 3y agoYeah, but think of all the profit the wealthiest people would have made till then. And then about the even more money they'll make when governments will have to use taxpayer money to fix the environment.
- klyrs 3y agoWe're going to solve this problem with bombs. I've been saying this since the mid-90s and have not been dissuaded.
- ramijames 3y agoI also have this opinion. My gut says that people like Putin also hold this opinion and that's what the war in Ukraine is really about. Resources are limited, things are about to get worse.
- bequanna 3y agoCan you elaborate on the “things are about to get worse” part? Rising temperatures will possibly open up vast areas of Russia for farming. Like the US, they are not a net loser.
- klyrs 3y agoIs the soil any good up there? I ask because people say this about Canada without recognizing that the soil quality is rubbish in our northern lands. edit to add: averages are one thing. Average temperatures are going up. The real scary part, for farming, is the variability of weather -- that's on the rise too.
- Sohcahtoa82 3y agoSo I should keep buying stock in Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, etc?
- klyrs 3y agoThe bombs win. You can't take it with you
- lolive 3y agoSpoil: Money won’t fix the environment.
- SamPatt 3y agoEnvironmental protection seems to be a luxury good. Nations don't typically prioritize it until they get wealthy. The wealthiest nations are the ones with the strongest environmental protections. So, in a weird way, money may very well fix the environment.
- Rinzler89 3y ago>So, in a weird way, money may very well fix the environment. But they make that money by first destroying the environment. And there's no guarantee they'll save/invest enough of that money for cleaning up the environment later if all the money goes into the hands of a few super-wealthy individuals/corporations while the state's coffers will still be empty.
- consumer451 3y agoFrom a species POV, the truly stupid thing is that there is plenty of money to be made de-carbonizing our economies. Two of the main problems are purely psychological: 1) It would require people with money to take chances, when the status quo has made them wealthy 2) It requires politically dogmatic people to be much less dogmatic
- EA-3167 3y agoWho will pay for/bear the costs of the damages? Who would pay for the limiting? Are they the same people? If not, there's your answer. A billion poor Africans being harmed doesn't hit the bottom line of the people who would be on the hook for preventing those damaged.
- ncr100 3y agoThe real question is who receives the $. Watch out for them, as they could be the irresponsible provocateurs here.
- zachmu 3y agoThe "damages" here come from reduced projected growth rates relative to a scenario without climate change. I.e. people will be richer than they are today in 2050, but poorer than they would have hypothetically been in a world without climate change. > So, what happens by 2050? The researchers' model suggests that "committed damages comprise a permanent income reduction of 19 percent on average globally," compared to where growth would have gotten us. Uncertainties mean the likely range is between 11 and 29 percent. Using a middle-of-the-road scenario for economic growth, this translates to an economic hit of $38 trillion (a figure measured in international dollars.)
- SamPatt 3y agoIs this true across all socioeconomic groups? All of them projected to be better off? What is the citation for this?