Yeah I think existing on the planet Earth is more important than green paper.
The thing is, until you can articulate in money terms what the losses are likely to be with climate change, the short term view that it’s not worth spending money on will prevail.
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).
The cost is everything.
