275 Trillion

[aix_xpert]

McKinsey calculates the staggering capital spending required to reach net-zero by 2050

We'll have to spend an extra $3.5 trillion a year on physical assets for energy and land-use systems, says a new McKinsey report.

www.cnbc.com

So the article says it will cost $275 Trillion between now and 2050 to solve climate change. Also says if we do nothing, that the ecomonic impact of climate change will be $22T/year. Seems like a pretty small savings vs. alternative ways to spend that money to me. $275 Trillion building new airports, roads, railways, CNG power plants and transmission lines, etc around the world would, in my estimation, create significantly greater impact than just $22T/year. Does it make me a science denier if I question whether the opportunity cost of $275T spent on climate change is worth the benefit?

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

McKinsey calculates the staggering capital spending required to reach net-zero by 2050

We'll have to spend an extra $3.5 trillion a year on physical assets for energy and land-use systems, says a new McKinsey report.

www.cnbc.com

So the article says it will cost $275 Trillion between now and 2050 to solve climate change. Also says if we do nothing, that the ecomonic impact of climate change will be $22T/year. Seems like a pretty small savings vs. alternative ways to spend that money to me. $275 Trillion building new airports, roads, railways, CNG power plants and transmission lines, etc around the world would, in my estimation, create significantly greater impact than just $22T/year. Does it make me a science denier if I question whether the opportunity cost of $275T spent on climate change is worth the benefit?

Temps are going to rise another 1.3C over 73 years! Welp that puts me at 125 years old. Momma gubmint will be paying my AC/electric bill and I will be inside enjoying it if I am even alive

23T is a guess based on predictions. When have they gotten any predictions right?

 

[aix_xpert]

Temps are going to rise another 1.3C over 73 years! Welp that puts me at 125 years old. Momma gubmint will be paying my AC/electric bill and I will be inside enjoying it if I am even alive

23T is a guess based on predictions. When have they gotten any predictions right?

Agreed, but I was simply using the Climate Truthers numbers. But an 8% projected ROI on a 20+ year project would get laughed out of any board room in America.

 

[Bitter Creek]

I’m sure China will help

 

[2012Bearcat]

Climate change is nothing more than a power and money grab.

 

[CoastGuardCowboy]

Climate change is nothing more than a power and money grab.

If the Regressives were really concerned about climate change, they would try to find a way to "cap" all these Volcanoes spewing CO2 into the atmosphere! I'm sure that these Volcanoes are releasing more CO2 than all the vehicles, vessels and airplanes,etc. I haven't heard any Liberals bring this up. *CO2 doesn't cause climate change, although the confused Climate Changers & Google experts believe it does.🤓

 

[SUPERPOKES]

By the title, I thought this might be how many people McDonalds had served now.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

By the title, I thought this might be how many people McDonalds had served now.

It’s so annoying that they only say billions served theses days as opposed to the old days when they would update the number.

 

[ClintonDavidScott]

Climate change is nothing more than a power and money grab.

***also thinks the hottest Christmas ever recorded was totes normal***

 

[2012Bearcat]

***also thinks the hottest Christmas ever recorded was totes normal***

Yea it was unusual but not unheard of. Had similar weather back in the early 70s but then all the rage was the earth was entering another Ice Age.

 

[davidallen]

McKinsey calculates the staggering capital spending required to reach net-zero by 2050

We'll have to spend an extra $3.5 trillion a year on physical assets for energy and land-use systems, says a new McKinsey report.

www.cnbc.com

So the article says it will cost $275 Trillion between now and 2050 to solve climate change. Also says if we do nothing, that the ecomonic impact of climate change will be $22T/year. Seems like a pretty small savings vs. alternative ways to spend that money to me. $275 Trillion building new airports, roads, railways, CNG power plants and transmission lines, etc around the world would, in my estimation, create significantly greater impact than just $22T/year. Does it make me a science denier if I question whether the opportunity cost of $275T spent on climate change is worth the benefit?

It's not an either/or proposition. We likely will have a significant drag on overall economic productivity even with the spending contemplated by McKinsey. The economic models do a poor job of calculating the human misery resulting from mass dislocations that are an inevitable future occurrence.