Hacker News Reader

Spending about 2% of current world domestic product on CO2 mitigation seems perfectly justifiable to me.

Morally, or economically?

A 2% drop in world gdp would lead to at least as bad a recession (likely even worse) than the one we're in now.

During the past year the world gdp rose 3.1% (See https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...) - which was about 2% lower growth rate on gdp.

View on HN

A 2% drop in world gdp would lead to at least as bad a recession (likely even worse) than the one we're in now.

And a catastrophic failure of the ocean's ecosystem would have no economic impact at all, I guess? An economic analysis can't just ignore the risks of inaction when considering the costs of proposed solutions.

A 2% drop in world gdp in one year would be bad. But a 2% drop compared to what we could have done over 10 years would be 0.2% per year, which would be minor inconvenience in any given year and is (as you noted) far outweighed by the ongoing growth. Furthermore if we don't do it, the eventual costs from the environmental disasters are so much higher that we would come out worse in the long run.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com