Do we have $89 trillion to spare?

classical_hero

In whom I trust
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
33,262
Location
Perth,Western Australia
http://www.21stcentech.com/89/
April 19, 2015 – The World Bank, International Monetary Fund and United Nations held a powwow in the last week along with representatives from 42 countries. Collectively they concluded that the next decade-and-a-half will require a global investment of $89 trillion U.S. in infrastructure, energy, land use systems and urban development to meet the challenge of climate change. An additional $4 trillion would fuel the permanent transition to a low-carbon economic future keeping temperatures within the internationally agreed to target limit of no more than a 2 Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) rise.

:faint: Are they serious? Where is all this money coming from?
 
Oh, don't worry. It states that the sum is needed for an ordered transition which we won't have anyway.
Famines and refugee crises it is.
 
Well we have neglected our infrastructure for a long long time so I'd think a lot of that is for just upgrading the infrastructure to something that won't crumble when you drive on it.
 
This will stimulate the economy.
 
Given that the world economy is $100 trillion a year and (presumably rising), $89 trillion over a decade and a half is ~5%?

It's a lot of money, but eminently doable. Especially given how much is being wasted on fruitless wars, entertainment, cosmetics and plain frippery (to mention but four).

A better question is whether we can afford not to spend that kind of money. Though, I guess, that's a fruitless question since, as has been observed already, it isn't going to be spent at all.
 
$241 trillion? That's even more than my source quoted.

So that's only about 2% over 15 years.
 
This much money in the world ... Cant anyone gibe me £100k so I can just buy most of my house? QQ.
 
God hates the economy because we worship the bull. Hence the warming and associated blights upon the earthe.
 
Wiki claims that the world GDP (GWP?) was $74.3 trillion in 2013. Total wealth is going to be several times that, but that's not the same as GDP. So this comes out to about 8% of 2013 GDP per year for 15 years. I don't know how this compares to the cost of keeping all world infrastructure properly maintained for 15 years without making any effort to reduce emissions, which is the key point - the amount we have to spend over and above the cost of business as usual.
 
[citation and reasoning needed]

>Present Status: Global system based on monetary value exchange as compensation for work performed; such exchanges are necessary to facilitate circulation of resources inside present system.
>Situation: Global problem exists which threatens mankind
>Crisis: Cost to fix said problem requires vastly more money than exists or can be mustered
>Conclusion: system based on monetary value exchanges as compensation for work performed cannot solve problem
>Solution: adopt new system where action is not dictated by need to be compensated through monetary value exchanges
>Outcome: global problem stands far better chance of being solved and mankind surviving
 
>Present Status: Global system based on monetary value exchange as compensation for work performed; such exchanges are necessary to facilitate circulation of resources inside present system.
>Situation: Global problem exists which threatens mankind
>Crisis: Cost to fix said problem requires vastly more money than exists or can be mustered
>Conclusion: system based on monetary value exchanges as compensation for work performed cannot solve problem
>Solution: adopt new system where action is not dictated by need to be compensated through monetary value exchanges
>Outcome: global problem stands far better chance of being solved and mankind surviving

Whoa. Feels like I stumbled into /r/badeconomics.

1. The system has always been based on exchanging units of value for services or goods. Monetary value is just representations of that.

2. If the cost to fix said problem requires "vastly more money" than exists or can be mustered, than this means that there are no solutions that are reasonable to try at this time (which isn't true whatsoever given there are existing projects underway).

3. In every system a person has to be compensated in some way. Nobody does something from the bottom of their heart. Are you suggesting we replace US dollars with potatoes?

Maybe tulips.

4. "Assuming the rest of my points are valid in this universe, or in any adjacent ones."

But yeah, otherwise you're right. This totally radical system of non-monetary systems would totally fix all the world's problems because reasons.
 
Whoa. Feels like I stumbled into /r/badeconomics.

1. The system has always been based on exchanging units of value for services or goods. Monetary value is just representations of that.

2. If the cost to fix said problem requires "vastly more money" than exists or can be mustered, than this means that there are no solutions that are reasonable to try at this time (which isn't true whatsoever given there are existing projects underway).

3. In every system a person has to be compensated in some way. Nobody does something from the bottom of their heart. Are you suggesting we replace US dollars with potatoes?

Maybe tulips.

4. "Assuming the rest of my points are valid in this universe, or in any adjacent ones."

But yeah, otherwise you're right. This totally radical system of non-monetary systems would totally fix all the world's problems because reasons.

I guess we're screwed then. Best cash your cheques now before we all bake to death.
 
Hope they don't spend all that before the cycles cycle around and it gets cold again.

Solar cycle 25 should do the trick. Much more reasonable thing to panic about btw since the normal average temp for this planet is much colder than now. This is the short blip between much longer periods of glaciation.

Remember, we are at the end of an interglacial during an ice age. :dunno: Just sayin...

Lets spend trillions to make things cooler, brilliant. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom