glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
Well, we're looking at about 65 trillion and that's far far too low because there's "what happens after what happens after" consideration. What I'm talking about is that climate is a crisis multiplier. You have direct consequences such as crop failure which leads to failure in the agriculture sector which leads to increased costs and shortages which leads to unemployment increasing to cut costs which leads to further economic catastrophe and on and on. Like climate change itself, the adverse economic effects would be subject to ever-increasing positive feedback which makes the dubious estimate of 92 trillion to break the fatal cycle a mere pittance.
Oh, everyone gets to die, because that increase rate is being driven by things like melting permafrost, which is one factor driving up the heat content of oceans again at an increasing rate. The major oxygen producing organism, phytoplankton are already dying accounting for changes in whale migration. At some point, the O2 levels become too low to support higher life and that's us. Once this is observed in lower O2 percentages then only God can fix it. There is no human agency that can stop which is, in essence, a planetary sided runaway train. The math of chaotic system demands that the central tendency, the "attractor" so to speak will move to a higher energy point before it establishes equilibrium and that is certainly going to be at a point beyond sustainability of human and higher life.
So when I say we have perhaps 20 to 30 years I am not exaggerating. We may already be beyond the point of no return, but I have to hope we can complete (not start) work in the next couple of decades if it costs 500 trillion.
Fear mongering about polar bears and humanity dying doesn't get my kids to fit in a Smart4Two car.
