World needs $90tn infrastructure overhaul to avoid climate disaster, study finds | Hacker News Reader

World needs $90tn infrastructure overhaul to avoid climate disaster, study finds

theguardian.com

20 pointsnabla97 comments

For those of us challenged by so many zeros, that's about $13,000 per human being, ostensibly to be spent over the next 15 years.

For the US, that'd be a cost of ~$4.8tn, or, just over $300bn annually for the next 15 years. Spending that much would represent an increase of about 8% of the US government budget for 15 years, and have to be funded by raising taxes, cutting spending elsewhere, or borrowing.

On the plus side, it would all get injected into the economy and put many people to work (like some of those disenfranchised men who were a topic yesterday [and the disenfranchised women who apparently weren't] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12649106 ). And it would hopefully thereby reintroduce inflation and the fed would raise interest rates so we could move back to a less abnormal economy. Unless, of course, that we're already in the new normal.

That sounds like a no brainer. I'd be interested in hearing the other side of this argument.

One consideration, and perhaps an economist can weigh in, using the same analysis for India, they'd need to spend a total of US$16tn. That's 55x their annual budget for the entire country (I think, (Rp. 197,80,60 Crore = US$293Bn?). It's completely un-affordable. However, for example, the cost of labor is also a fraction of what it is in the US, and, the way the money needs to be spent is likely different, so more digging needs to be done that I have time for now.

The point being that many countries simply can't afford to do their 'fair share' today, and if it's going to be done globally, wealthier countries will have to pay more.

I'm too lazy to Google up the annual budget of all the nations on the entire planet, but I have a suspicion it's fraction of the cost of doing this infrastructure overhaul.

I don't think per capita is the right way to calculate this. We're talking about infrastructure spending, and if poor countries have less infrastructure, then they also have less that needs to be upgraded.

They also produce fewer green house gasses... and it would make sense that more money would need to be spent where those gasses are emitted (ie: not in poor countries).

And they use less energy, which means fewer plants that need to be replaced.

In the summary [0], it says they think spending needs to increase from 3.4T/yr to 6T/yr... a 70% increase.

I think a more accurate estimate would be to take current spending in India, and increase it by 70%.

That would mean the US would shoulder a much larger portion of this increase.. Which makes sense, since we're one of the largest emitters of green house gasses.

0. http://newclimateeconomy.report/2016/executive-summary/

Doesn't seem fair to charge per capita. Maybe by GDP? The gross world product is ~$78T. If spread over 15 years, it's about 8.7% of output yearly.

Or maybe by share of total carbon produced historically?

For comparison, total cost of Iraq, Afghan wars is $4 - $6 trillion

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study...

I may be jaded, but I just don't see it happening. People love power and using power. Too many of us are greedy, and lazy. Too many regect the science. Too many weren't taught to respect the earth, and we don't teach our children. Too many are caught up with winning at all costs.

What we have lost is our humility, our humanity, our will power and our motivation.

The problems are too big, and I'll be dead soon anyway. Might as well enjoy it while you can. YOLO.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com