[vegetablepotpie]

We’re going to lose economic growth because of climate change, “Staying under the 2C threshold could limit average regional income loss to 20 percent compared to 60 percent" [1]. Whether it will be significant amount, or a devastating amount is still to be determined. US GDP is $20T, and the difference between low warming and high warming is 40% loss! This means we could spend up to $8T a year to address climate change and it would still make economic sense.

The Inflation Reduction Act authorized $370B of spending over 10 years on climate and energy [2]. This is about 0.1% of annual GDP and about 0.4% of what we could be investing to address this. If we spent even a fraction more, we could rapidly convert housing and transportation to electric, make electrical grids renewable, and decarbonization manufacturing, we have the technology to do this. We can do this, the most important thing is to tell others we can, and particularly people with power and influence.

[1] https://phys.org/news/2024-04-climate-impacts-global-gdp.htm...

[2] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/27/manchin-schumer-sen...

[Voultapher]

As much as I'm in favor of moving towards renewables, we are still destroying our biosphere, and the resources needed for renewables are not renewable ...

> Energy transition aspirations are similar. The goal is powering modernity, not addressing the sixth mass extinction. Sure, it could mitigate the CO2 threat (to modernity), but why does the fox care when its decline ultimately traces primarily to things like deforestation, habitat fragmentation, agricultural runoff, pollution, pesticides, mining, manufacturing, or in short: modernity. Pursuit of a giant energy infrastructure replacement requires tremendous material extraction—directly driving many of these ills—only to then provide the energetic means to keep doing all these same things that abundant evidence warns is a prescription for termination of the community of life.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/death-by-hockey-sticks/

Humanity needs to let go of the fantasy of endless growth, which permeates through our cultures, economies and politics. Life on this earth is a co-op, you can't win by being the last species alive, or at least your wining will look very sad and be short lived. If you think endless growth is a viable strategy, go and ask your neighborhood slime mold in a petri dish what it thinks.

[nazgul17]

Before growth became a thing, it was a zero sum game. Nasty setup for harmonious living.

[ETH_start]

We are not confined to Earth. Currently something like 99.9999999% of the energy radiated by the sun is emitted into empty space, where it is completely wasted. That can all be harvested.

To put that into perspective, our civilization could use 20 trillion times more energy than it does now if it harvested the sun's entire output.

[_bin_]

cool theory. McKinsey estimates a transition like that would cost $275 trillion and take until 2050. that's a lot of money. not only that, we all know the global south will, true to form, come calling with their hands out, demanding that we pay for their stuff too. which would essentially bankrupt America. we're already tens of trillions in the hole; we can't afford it.

just as importantly, since you're making a practical argument for why we should care, your own linked analysis suggests America will experience very little impact from global warming. impact levels run from a bit below +10 to a bit below -30 with zero as no impact; looks like our projected impact is around -10.

if you were assigning America some vaguely proportional cost, we could do so relative to emissions (giving us a $40T bill) or GDP ($72T). both of those numbers are significantly greater than the current national debt. they would bankrupt the nation, cripple the common man with inflation, and screw us out of any shot at reindustrializing.

as usual, unsaid is the massive downgrade in standard of living people expect us to somehow magically accept to build this bridge to nowhere.

[1] https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-ins...

[ZeroGravitas]

You appear to be aggressively agreeing with the person you replied to with your source.

They said the US could spend 8 Trillion a year and it would still make financial sense.

Your Mackinsey report says the whole world should spend 9.2 Trillion a year to make the transition and that it makes financial sense to do so, both due to avoided costs of climate change and that many of the things needed to transition have a positive return in investmemt anyway.

Your own contribution on top of the report just seems muddled and confused given what you've cited.

Are you saying Mackinsey are wrong and it would be cheaper to do nothing? They're very clear even in the executive summary that is not the case:

> The rewards of the net-zero transition would far exceed the mere avoidance of the substantial, and possibly catastrophic, dislocations that would result from unabated climate change, or the considerable benefits they entail in natural capital conservation. Besides the immediate economic opportunities they create, they open up clear possibilities to solve global challenges in both physical and governance-related terms. These include the potential for a long-term decline in energy costs that would help solve many other resource issues and lead to a palpably more prosperous global economy.

[adamsch]

precisely, fossil fuels are ruining the economy

[User23]

You're only off by an order of magnitude. $370B is around 1.25% of $30T

[User23]

What do you mean "we?" China has not just indicated but incontrovertibly demonstrated that they do not care about carbon dioxide emission targets. They are massively ramping up their oxidative energy production. So as I see it there are two choices.

One: deindustrialize and let China control all industrial production while having massive carbon dioxide emissions or,

Two: reindustrialize and challenge China's industrial production advantage while having massive carbon dioxide emissions.

Low emissions aren't on the table. They're not a possibility. So at this point I'm deeply suspicious of anyone peddling that fantasy. They are, most likely, spreading Chinese misinformation, wittingly or unwittingly.

[ben_w]

China is rapidly ramping up everything, including renewables. Biggest CO2 source in China right now is coal, and PV is much cheaper than coal, so them getting cleaner isn't even a question of them playing nice or thinking long-term, it's fully compatible with their own immediate interests.

[rtsil]

Reindustrialization isn't possible because you cannot reduce your costs to China levels, particularly if you clamp down on immigration as well. The best you can hope for is to diversify the supply by industrializing other, geographically and/or ideologically closer countries that can produce at reduced costs and are also more dependent on your economy or your military might. A suite of vassal countries, if you will.

[bokoharambe]

Much sillier to think "reindustrialization" is possible. It is a problem of social metabolism, not a policy issue. Industrialization was a particular historical phenomenon that has now fully passed in the West.

China "won" before the game even began for the simple fact of them being a very late developer. Development is not even guaranteed as a consequence of industrialization anymore; see premature deindustrialization. No misinformation needed, just cold hard historical laws.

[ETH_start]

CO2 massively increases farm yields so I find your claims to be tenuous at best:

https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_fertilization_effect

[defrost]

  While there is a "CO2 fertilization effect" where rising atmospheric carbon dioxide can initially boost plant growth, scientists are increasingly stating that this effect is reaching its limit, meaning plants can no longer absorb as much CO2 due to factors like nutrient limitations and other environmental constraints, effectively capping the potential for further carbon uptake from the atmosphere. 

It rose in the 30 years prior to your 2016 article, it's peaked and it is unlikely there will be any further benefical effects of "greening" (not the same as "nutritional") vegetation .. and this is outweighed by the downsides of increased insulation in the atmosphere trapping more of the daily solar influx energy at the land, sea, air interface.

[jandrewrogers]

On the other hand, higher weather variance reduces average yields to an extent that dwarfs any benefit from higher CO2. Increased yield unpredictability is a much bigger problem for the agricultural supply chain because it increases average unit costs.

[maigret]

LOL have you spoken with farmers lately about their crops? If not I encourage you to ask them about the last 5 - 10 years...

[ch0wn]

No, it is not and the idea that extreme weather would somehow result in more food is laughable on its face. Higher CO2 concentrations also reduce the nutrients in food.

https://skepticalscience.com/fact-brief-plant.html