• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    33 days ago

    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.

    • @Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In
      link
      23 days ago

      Unfortunately rich people think that only poor people will suffer. Cost analysis is needed to show that they will also suffer.

        • @Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In
          link
          13 days ago

          It’s pragmatism. I can’t see how else you can get rich decision makers to support any spending of “their” money.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            23 days ago

            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.

            • @Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In
              link
              12 days ago

              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).