• Tvkan@feddit.deEnglish
    8·
    10 months ago

    Imagine how cheap it could’ve been if we started 50 years ago.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      10 months ago

      That averages out to an easy 55 billion a country. I’m sure this will happen.

      Or does this include private investments?

      • Ooops@kbin.social
        41·
        10 months ago

        And in the same time they will save (also in the article) 2.8 trillion (or 100 billion on average per country) in fossil fuel imports and 2.5 trillion (or 90 billion per country) in prevented damages.

        So I’d call this a great bargain…

        Now, we only need to explain them the obvious: Who starts early will get a higher share of the savings.

    • melooone@feddit.deEnglish
      2·
      10 months ago

      I first thought in long scale, then it would be 1.5 * 1018. That would be a bit too much though.

  • KISSmyOS@feddit.deEnglish
    2·
    10 months ago

    That’s 1/4 of the total tax revenue of EU member states.
    If that’s what it takes, it’s already too late.

    • MrMakabar@feddit.deEnglish
      6·
      10 months ago

      That almost certainly is including private investment, which makes it a lot more possible. Especially with a lot of it replacing old fossil fuel infrastructure.

      • Ooops@kbin.social
        11·
        10 months ago

        It doesn’t ewven need to when (by the article linked) those investments are one side of a plan that also includes saving 2.8 trillion in fossil fuel exports in the same time, while also projecting +2.4 trillion in damages if no climate action is taken.

        And that’s not even a new thing. We know that taking climate action now will actually save us money, short and long term. But it will also decrease the money paid by lobbyists to politicians and media and the profits of fossil fuel companies, so we will get headlines like these and a lot of political narratives to discourage us.