(I have supported strong action on climate change for over 20 years, and I still do, but..)
I think this is simply not correct. Taking action to "safeguard our future" requires considerably more than shifting 2% of our wealth.
We need to radically alter many fundamental aspects of how society works, including
energy
agriculture
transport
manufacturing
I think it's dangerous to understate the reality of what is required.
This claim reminds me of Nordhaus' dangerously-misguided remark that climate change will have a negligible effect because agriculture is only 3% of GDP
@wall0159@dan613
Would it be alright with you if everyone started out by shifting 2% of their resources towards stabilizing our climate and then we see where are from there?
@GreenFire, well given the global economy is averaging about 3% annual growth, reallocating 2% p.a. away from fossil energy implies 1% p.a. growth in fossil energy consumption. Do you think that's compatible with future human flourishing?
@wall0159@GreenFire It's a bit more complex than that. The 2% applies to the difference between the cost of doing things the old way and the new. And renewables energy is cheaper than fossil energy at the moment, so there's more to apply to more difficult transitions (eg airlines, cement). In fact, we may already be at peak fossil energy consumption.
Add comment