Would spending 100 trillion dollars that we don't have cause more deaths than it prevents, due to increased poverty and rising cost of living? That's all I'm really asking here. Has anyone bothered to run the numbers?
Subsidies for oil, coal and natural gas currently cost us about 7.1% of global GDP. [1]
I imagine if we were willing to spend 2 to 5% of global GDP on fighting climate change, we'd also be cutting those subsidies. So in that scenario we'd be reducing government deficits and reducing the rate at which we print money, not increasing it.
I agree on ending the subsidies, that's fine. But the US alone spends over $2T more each year than it earns. Oil/gas subsidies in the US are a tiny fraction of that sum.
I imagine if we were willing to spend 2 to 5% of global GDP on fighting climate change, we'd also be cutting those subsidies. So in that scenario we'd be reducing government deficits and reducing the rate at which we print money, not increasing it.
1. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel...