Probably the first thing to do in terraforming Mars is drop a bunch of icy comets onto it. We are willing to spend many trillions on projects that could take over a century to come to fruition. Between now and the 2035 alone, global investment in energy and energy efficiency (in many cases with a many-decades payback period) is estimated at about $40 trillion, of which $6 trillion is in renewables and $1 trillion in low-carbon nuclear. Both of these objections appear decisively answered by climate change policies and indeed energy policies in general. Second, it is said to require too long a timescale to be plausible. First, it is said to be too expensive, altogether, to be plausible. There are two standard objections to such terraforming. a dense enough atmosphere and high enough temperature for Martian water in the poles and soil to melt, creating seas) – achievable in about 100 years – and from there to microbes and algae getting us to “green planet” status within 200 to 600 years. A standard estimate is that, for about $2-$3 trillion, in between 100 and 200 years we would be able to get Mars from its current “red planet” (dead planet) status to ” blue planet” (i.e. Here is alternative way to spend around the same amount of money with around the same timescale of payback: terraforming Mars. One frequently quoted study of the global costs of mitigating climate change put them at around $3 trillion by 2100, with the main benefits being felt between 21. We can terraform Mars for the same cost as mitigating climate change. From the Andrew Lillico (via Bishop Hill) the costs of terraforming Mars -vs- mitigating Earthly climate change seem to have similar values and timescales.

Terraformers obama