https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study...
The point being that many countries simply can't afford to do their 'fair share' today, and if it's going to be done globally, wealthier countries will have to pay more.
I'm too lazy to Google up the annual budget of all the nations on the entire planet, but I have a suspicion it's fraction of the cost of doing this infrastructure overhaul.
They also produce fewer green house gasses... and it would make sense that more money would need to be spent where those gasses are emitted (ie: not in poor countries).
And they use less energy, which means fewer plants that need to be replaced.
In the summary [0], it says they think spending needs to increase from 3.4T/yr to 6T/yr... a 70% increase.
I think a more accurate estimate would be to take current spending in India, and increase it by 70%.
That would mean the US would shoulder a much larger portion of this increase.. Which makes sense, since we're one of the largest emitters of green house gasses.
Or maybe by share of total carbon produced historically?
For the US, that'd be a cost of ~$4.8tn, or, just over $300bn annually for the next 15 years. Spending that much would represent an increase of about 8% of the US government budget for 15 years, and have to be funded by raising taxes, cutting spending elsewhere, or borrowing.
On the plus side, it would all get injected into the economy and put many people to work (like some of those disenfranchised men who were a topic yesterday [and the disenfranchised women who apparently weren't] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12649106 ). And it would hopefully thereby reintroduce inflation and the fed would raise interest rates so we could move back to a less abnormal economy. Unless, of course, that we're already in the new normal.