



Here’s the conclusion:



The exact numbers here are, like numbers in all economic modeling, probably going to turn out to be wrong. My guess is they are on the low end, but there are so many assumptions required that, really, who knows.

The paper does highlight an important conceptual point, though. Discussion about shifting to clean energy (or regenerative agriculture, or sustainable urbanism, etc.) tends to be dominated by the costs of changing. But the choice is not costs or no costs: the status quo carries costs too. Every day we stick with the status quo, we are increasing the costs our descendants will pay for the inevitable, unavoidable transitions to more sustainable systems. (Relatedly: the cost of reducing carbon emissions enough to avoid catastrophic warming rises every year.)

The question is not costs or no costs, but about the balance of costs and benefits, and perhaps more importantly, who pays the costs and who receives the benefits. Right now we are imposing huge and growing costs are our descendants in exchange for temporary, unsustainable benefits today. That is the farthest thing from “fiscal conservatism.”