The newest out of the UN IPCC is that they want $2.4T a yr for 20 years so as to stay the temperature from emerging through greater than 1.5° C.
The IPCC’s modelled pathways display that $2.4 trillion should be invested in new blank power annually from 2015 thru 2035, which, Bloomberg notes, is a nearly sevenfold building up from the $333.5 billion invested in renewable power in 2017. That is an combination funding of $48 trillion. The passion invoice on my own (at say 5%pa) can be $200 billion monthly – greater than the complete global recently spends on early life schooling and environmental coverage blended.
The record (C2.7) says that “the literature on overall mitigation prices of 1.5°C mitigation pathways is proscribed and was once now not assessed on this record”. Others have calculated huge further expenditure on power potency, electrical energy transmission and garage, CCS and different carbon dioxide elimination (CDR). But even those estimates don’t try to put a value upon the “unheard of adjustments in all sides of society” referred to as for through the IPCC.
The “literature is proscribed” is beautiful humorous, with the astronomical sums demanded. So how does the science hang up in this? Judy Curry has an extended and detailed research, however that is the key bit:
IMO, even with misguided attribution of utmost climate/local weather occasions and projections the usage of local weather fashions which can be operating too scorching and now not are compatible for objective of projecting 21st century local weather trade, the IPCC nonetheless has now not made a powerful case for this large funding to stop 1.5C warming.
The “Science is Settled” even if it’s according to laptop fashions “operating too scorching and now not are compatible for objective”. But flip over your cash and freedom at the moment or we will name you a local weather denier or one thing. Yawn.