Read on Twitter
It's conservatives' favorite argument against climate solutions: "it's too expensive!"
In @CC_Yale I tried to do a definitive debunking of this myth, also available @skepticscience short URL http://sks.to/costs . Please read it, then this thread (1/10) https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/11/fighting-climate-change-cheaper-than-business-as-usual-and-better-for-the-economy/
In @CC_Yale I tried to do a definitive debunking of this myth, also available @skepticscience short URL http://sks.to/costs . Please read it, then this thread (1/10) https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/11/fighting-climate-change-cheaper-than-business-as-usual-and-better-for-the-economy/
First, HUGE CAVEAT: we can't put a $$$ value on many climate crisis consequences like suffering, trauma, extinctions, lost biodiversity, etc., as advocates like @GretaThunberg & @sunrisemvmt remind us. Nevertheless, the economic case for climate solutions is a no-brainer (2/10)
Opponents like Trump & @NikkiHaley argue against a #GreenNewDeal by inflating its cost and ignoring its benefits. They're only doing the first half of a cost-benefit analysis, and doing it in a bad faith, bullshit way (e.g. see the thread below) (3/10) https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/1333171951276179458
The benefits of climate action (in avoided damages) are immense as my @CC_Yale piece documents. For the US alone $5-10 trillion by 2050 and north of $20 trillion by 2100. Not only lessened climate catastrophes, but cleaner air = better health avoiding ~1M US deaths by 2050 (4/10)
In fact, that may just be the tip of the iceberg. If climate change also slows economic growth, as some experts believe it will (though this is an unsettled question), due to compounding over time, it could cost the US alone north of $50 trillion by 2100 
(5/10)
(5/10)
And climate damages won't be spread evenly. Developing countries near the equator are particularly vulnerable. In the US, southern states will bear the brunt, battered by stronger hurricanes & sweltering heatwaves. Ironically, those states vote for climate obstructionists (6/10)
Meanwhile, as @ProjectDrawdown has documented, many climate solutions more than pay for themselves over time. After initial investments for deployment, over their lifetimes they save money through lower operations & maintenance costs (7/10): https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/03/aggressive-action-to-address-climate-change-could-save-the-world-145-trillion/
For example, as @Lazard found in its latest levelized cost of energy annual report, solar & wind are the cheapest sources of new energy, even cheaper than continuing to run existing coal power plants. Crazy! (8/10) https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/1319678659200831490
The catch? Climate solutions do require big up-front investments for benefits that mostly take decades to accrue. It's like the Marshmallow test, where delayed gratification yields a bigger reward. Here, the reward is a livable climate, but we want immediate gratification (9/10)
So the fossil fuel-backed conservative shouts of "too expensive!" are effective, but in the long-term, they're exactly backwards. Climate inaction would cost tens of trillions of dollars, while solutions will more than pay for themselves over time (10/10). https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/11/fighting-climate-change-cheaper-than-business-as-usual-and-better-for-the-economy/
