Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_ireec59 wrote on October 7, 2022 at 12:59 PM

Reply to comment by Careful_Square1742 in Why Bernie rocks! He's not wrong. by DCLexiLou

To your last point: "the cost of changing has to be less than the cost of staying the same..."

Part of the issue here is we only look at the short-term dollar signs. We don't assign any cost to maintaining the status quo and heating up the planet. Increased storms (and storm damage), lowered crop yields, droughts, etc. These costs annually will be in the billions in the coming decades.

In that sense, low-carbon energy is far cheaper than fossil fuels even without the subsidies.

Careful_Square1742 t1_irehhji wrote on October 7, 2022 at 1:27 PM

you're absolutely right.

someone needs to do a net present value calculation on a trillion dollar investment's return vs 50 years of climate change at 8% (what was considered to be a decent return in the market a couple years ago)

the challenge will be getting consensus on what the cost of climate change is annually, since a good sized chunk of the us population doesn't think it's real.

Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_irev4mt wrote on October 7, 2022 at 3:15 PM

Exactly. Calculations like that need to be ran based on data available and incorporated into policy.

Fortunately companies are beginning to see the threat in the long-term, which is good to see. Companies think longer term than most people or politicians, so I see some hope there.

Case in point: several auto manufacturers have pledged to no longer sell ICE cars in 10-15 years. That's certainly not from regulatory pressure.