arstechnica ,
@arstechnica@mastodon.social avatar

Climate damages by 2050 will be 6 times the cost of limiting warming to 2°

Study tracks the past costs of climate events and projects them into the future.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/climate-damages-by-2050-will-be-6-times-the-cost-of-limiting-warming-to-2/?utm_brand=arstechnica&utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=social

xarvh ,
@xarvh@functional.cafe avatar

@arstechnica The big problem is that the people who are paying the costs are not the same who make money by keeping things as they are.

We're asking a transfer of money from rich people to poor people, and we can't have that.

This is why little will be done.

johnoconnor333 ,

@arstechnica the ones eating steaks lunch and dinner, driving big diesel SUVs and heating their houses like a tropical beach during the winter do not give a damn. Most of them will be de dead by 2050 but I know them I try to speak with them everyday, their answer? They don't give a damn, they just want to enjoy.

PaulDitz ,
@PaulDitz@todon.eu avatar

@arstechnica Well, that's certainly one way to grow the economy. 😮‍💨

enoch_exe_inc ,
@enoch_exe_inc@mastodon.social avatar

@arstechnica The number I’ve used for years to represent the “worse case” scenario is six degrees, as in “by the end of this century, average global temperatures will have risen by six degrees since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution”. I call it the worst case because it’s where we’d be if we did nothing about climate change.

I did not take into account that people would actively make it worse. It is now a distinct possibility that all civilisation would collapse this century.

Julianoe ,
@Julianoe@mastodon.xyz avatar

@arstechnica
@aral which does not matter because WE will pay. Adverting the catastrophe would cost to THEM.

kevinrns ,
@kevinrns@mstdn.social avatar

@arstechnica

To decipher this post.

The damages from carbon fueled climate change ALREADY costing more than building New Energy to end carbon.

Canada in one year above billions in other climate damage lost 30 billion trees

30 billion trees, the Canadian Wildfire Catastrophe🇨🇦🔥🚨in 2023, is more trees than would be cut in three centuries of logging. Canada isnt 200 years old. Paris east to Bonn Germany, down deep into the Alps, across west to Lyon in France. All burned into the soil

v4169sgr ,
@v4169sgr@mastodon.green avatar

@arstechnica

We may think its obvious; that all we need to do is explain the right way then everyone will do the right thing.

But if it is clear that this strategy isn't working well enough, then doesn't that suggest that we are asking the wrong question?

https://vocal.media/earth/carpe-diem-yr1qr40u5y

ALT
  • Reply
  • Loading...
  • brennx0r ,
    @brennx0r@mastodon.social avatar

    @arstechnica

    “the areas with the highest costs tend to have the lowest cumulative emissions. In other words, the problems are felt most keenly in the countries that made the smallest contributions to them.”

    I deeply feel this. Back in my home country of Bermuda, the ecosystem is already experiencing disrepair. It’s entirely possible that it will be nearly all underwater by 2050. And yet the wheels of late stage capitalism continue to turn there with the “all in” surrounding crypto/fintech.

    cykonot ,
    @cykonot@mas.to avatar

    @arstechnica yes, but nature doesn't give campaign contributions or sweet lobbying + consulting gigs

    phi1997 ,

    @arstechnica
    The correct course of action is obvious if you're capable of thinking beyond the next quarter

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • All magazines