Quote:
|
So you WOULD be willing to spend trillions of dollars on a global level of wealth redistribution?
|
What does this statement even mean? Spending trillings of dollars on a global level of wealth redistribution? Are you implying that if we want to mitigate GHG emissions then we have to spend trillions of dollars elsewhere? Because that's patently false.
First, the costs are estimated to be globally trillions, but its not costs as in spending costs. Costs are estimated in GDP losses relative to a BAU.
Second, costs are borne mostly internally. The idea that the world goes out and spends trillions "elsewhere" (to imply redistribution) is just delusional.
The effects will spur economic restructuring. Fossil fuel intensive sectors will contract but, shockingly, efficient and less ghg intensive sectors will absorb that lost investment. There will be some total loss as I've already said. But, it's a risk mitigation effort. Because I'll tell you what if we mess up our agricultural sectors for example we're looking at huge loss.
This is just another case of fear mongering on the other end. "Costs are going to be astronomical!!" But as I've illustrated in this very thread, growth is still positive in a GHG constricted economy as predicted by economic models. Growth is not only positive but vibrant.
What your comment shows is that you don't really have a solid understanding of what the costs actually are.