Similarly, a more recent study by another consultancy PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) that forecasts the economic outlook of the world’s economies https://theclimateconnection.org/ between now and 2050 points out that “Our analysis continues to reject the hypothesis that resource constraints and environmental concerns will derail global economic growth in a major way. We have outlined a “greener growth + CCS (carbon capture and storage)” scenario which we consider to be highly challenging politically, but which appears to be technologically feasible without excessive economic costs, provided that action is taken early enough across a broad range of fronts. All sectors of the economy need to achieve major emissions reductions as part of this process. We estimate that the costs of achieving the emissions reductions would be broadly equivalent to sacrificing only around a year of global GDP growth between now and 2050 (i.e. reaching the same level of GDP in 2051 as might otherwise have happened in 2050).”
Neither McKinsey nor PwC could be accused of being rapid environmentalists and if the cost of action is so low, why were we not acting yesterday never mind now?
To my view, a large part of the problem is the can be found in how individuals view things and value things. An experiment by Professor Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago makes an interesting illustration.