• Beastimus@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 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.

            • Beastimus@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 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@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 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).