52
Calculating the economic cost of climate change is tricky, even futile – it’s also a distraction
(theconversation.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2025
52 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5869 readers
715 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So, how much should we be spending to save the environment?
As much funds as we can mobilize. The possible futures are all bad, unless we make huge breakthroughs in pretty much all relevant technologies, somewhere between hundreds of millions and billions of people will die. This article is slightly misleading, as it posits cost entirely in terms of money. But the big cost of the changing climate is in lives. We will not be able to solve climate change before it gets much, much worse, so there is no theoretical amount money that would be "enough." Thus, as much as possible for the least bad possible future.
Unfortunately rich people think that only poor people will suffer. Cost analysis is needed to show that they will also suffer.
I love your optimism.
It's pragmatism. I can't see how else you can get rich decision makers to support any spending of "their" money.
You misunderstand. I was saying that the assumption that the rich folks behind climate change are acting out of ignorance is extraordinarily optimistic. I hope that I'm wrong, but I see no reason to believe that any cost estimate would get the main polluters (all billionaires included) on board with fighting climate change. Corporations and rich private citizens won't save us, and if they do, I will happily eat my words.
Its going to be collective action and government intervention.
Not just government intervention but consistency over all jurisdictions worldwide.
No company would take action alone, but industries may accept changes collectively if forced (e.g. tobacco).