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

Public costs, private profits. The usual.

We will spend it then because they will have to. They won't spend it now because it's not necessary. It's human nature.

Them: profit now, dead later.
Young people: pay now, pay later.
"I got mine."
It won't be spending.
Land, buildings, businesses, capitals will be lost. That's cost and spending won't fight back the sea. Not everywhere that matters, populated areas will be written off.

This is the thing that always drives me up the fucking wall when people say it's too expensive to fix. Expensive compared to what? It's like saying it's not worth stopping your car driving off the cliff because it will take energy to hit the brakes or move the steering wheel, just totally ignoring the fact that there is a huge cost to doing nothing.

Anyway, sorry for the rant but this whole issue is insane.

Why should we believe that the information they are giving us is true? If they claimed it would be 100x, how would we have any way to know its true?
- Because you can very easily already calculate the increased cost of natural disasters; droughts, floods, severe storms with wind and hail damage, crop spoilage, etc that is occurring right now. The future disasters will be worse.
  As explained in the article they take the cost of current disasters and multiply the known effects of global warming to calculate what costs will be. They can only calculate what they know.
  The costs are probably more like 1000x anyway because there is no way to really apply an accounting system to a complete calamity that would happen if numerous very likely feedback loops happen, as they hint to in the article.

Self-driving cars are probably 100x the cost of better transit as well, guess what we chose?

Yeah. We'd rather create consciousness to drive for us than put down some fucking rail.

I really don't think cost-benefit analysis is going to sway very many people. A lot of people continue to believe in the idea that humans are wholly rational, calculating, utility maximizing individuals, and thus if we just show them how much money they can save, they'll support climate mitigation efforts. But this model of rational economic man is wrong. Maybe it describes some people well enough, but I think it's a poor representation of how most people think and behave.

Humans are not wholly "rational." We are often influenced by emotions and our passions that can be decidedly irrational. But the thing I really take issue with is this continued narrative that humans are fully atomized individuals. It absolutely needs to stop, it's simply untrue. Humans are social, hyper social, even. We form all sorts of interconnected relationships, we depend on them, even, and we are highly tribal by our nature. It is how we evolved, it is how we survived. We are here because our ancestors formed tightly connected groups of people, with common purpose, common culture, common language, and common belief systems.

Do you know why so many people continue to deny climate change and fight against climate mitigation efforts? Because it's what their tribe tells them to do. They are being told by the members of their tribe that they respect and admire that climate change is a hoax perpetuated by an enemy tribe. They're being told that climate mitigation efforts are an attack on their culture, their way of life, and they're being told this by bad actors who deliberately use people's tribal nature against them, to manipulate the people into supporting them and their interests. We need to use culture for progress, so that it can't be weaponized against progress.

The sooner we shit-can the rational economic man model and start seeing people for what they really are: social beings who are highly motivated by emotions and passions, and the sooner we recognize the importance of culture and group identity, the closer we'll be to an actual solution.

The economy won't exist as it is today. Cost of adapting is bigger than economic growth by 2100, if not 2050. Private isurance as a concept no longer applies in many places as many properties are exposed to floods and storms by then making it too expensive to be useful.

Higher costs just mean someone will make more money. The system works as designed.

People expecting the bourgeosie to simply "do the right thing" when presented with clear evidence is pure Utopianism, and betrays an utter lack of understanding with regards to class dynamics and Capitalism in general.

Climate Change must be tackled without regard for the consent of the bourgeoisie.

Utopianism is only used when leftists want a thing, otherwise it's just "Good Business Sense™"
:(
- No, Utopianism is when leftists think that you can just convince the ruling class to act nicer because it's the right thing to do. There's no materialism in that, and will just repeat the failures of the Owenites.
  Actual change comes from force, which is why strikes are so effective. That has materialist analysis, harm the profits and concessions follow.