- Reaction score
- 1,678
(Reuters) - A growing number of climate economists say the world should take “immediate and drastic action” to tackle climate change, according to a survey published Tuesday.
Failing to do so could cost the world some $1.7 trillion a year by the middle of this decade, escalating to about $30 trillion a year by 2075, according to estimations by the 738 economists from around the world surveyed by New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity.
“People joke about how economists can’t agree on most things,” said Derek Sylvan, the institute’s strategy director and one of the authors of the survey. “But we seem to find a pretty strong level of consensus” on the economic importance of climate action.
Three-quarters of respondents strongly agreed that drastic action should be taken immediately, compared with just half of economists polled by the same institute in 2015.
For another question on reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, two-thirds said the costs of investing toward that global goal would be outweighed by the economic benefits, which would include preventing natural disasters, preserving coastal infrastructure and assets and protecting food supplies.
www.reuters.com
The fact that I have to highlight something unbelievable in bold is what's alarming. Someone made a nice analogy, describing this as saying, "1/3 of the economists believed having a fire is economically sound than investing costs into fire extinguishers".
Failing to do so could cost the world some $1.7 trillion a year by the middle of this decade, escalating to about $30 trillion a year by 2075, according to estimations by the 738 economists from around the world surveyed by New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity.
“People joke about how economists can’t agree on most things,” said Derek Sylvan, the institute’s strategy director and one of the authors of the survey. “But we seem to find a pretty strong level of consensus” on the economic importance of climate action.
Three-quarters of respondents strongly agreed that drastic action should be taken immediately, compared with just half of economists polled by the same institute in 2015.
For another question on reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, two-thirds said the costs of investing toward that global goal would be outweighed by the economic benefits, which would include preventing natural disasters, preserving coastal infrastructure and assets and protecting food supplies.
Economists weigh in on the merits of net-zero climate goals: survey
A growing number of climate economists say the world should take "immediate and drastic action" to tackle climate change, according to a survey published Tuesday.
The fact that I have to highlight something unbelievable in bold is what's alarming. Someone made a nice analogy, describing this as saying, "1/3 of the economists believed having a fire is economically sound than investing costs into fire extinguishers".
Last edited by a moderator:
