Cost to Combat Global Warming - What a Headline Does Not Tell

I read a headline today that states Study: $45 Trillion needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half. By reading the headline one would assume that solving the climate crisis is going to bankrupt the world - can anyone imagine that amount of money? The headline kind of makes it sound like a very expensive proposition doesn't it? Let us dig a bit deeper into the numbers with some quick back of the napkin math:

That $45 trillion is to be spent over 40 years as additional cost to produce green power from sources such as nuclear, wind and carbon capture. The study assumes an annual growth rate for the global economy of 3.3% per year. Let's even leave that out of the equation for a minute.

$45 trillion over 40 years = $1.125 trillion per year for 40 years. $1.125 trillion divided by 7 billion people (roughly the average world population between now and 2050 - again, very conservative number) equals $6,429 per person per year for 40 years. $6,429 divided by 40 years equals $161 per person per year. Divide $161 per person per year by 365 days and you get the whopping cost of $0.44 per person per day for 40 years to cut greenhouse gases in half by 2050 according to this study.

Ah, but you say, a couple of billion people in the world live on less than $1.00 per day, so let's assume that only the population of the U.S. absorbs all of the cost (that is probably not fair as they are responsible for 25% of global energy consumption). This assumption takes the cost up to $1.61 per American citizen per day for 40 years to cur greenhouse gases in half by 2050.
So, for less than the cost of a trip through the donut shop drive-thru for a large morning coffee we can solve the climate crisis. Sounds like a fair deal to me!

Now why can't the headline put it in that context?

Please see my next blog for more on this subject from a different perpective.