Comment by Boothroid
8 years ago
This reads very much like a Bjorn Lomborg type argument - along the lines of: global warming is not proven, and anyway if it does happen it may not be all bad, and even if it is bad we could better spend the money elsewhere. Personally when it comes to disturbing planetary equilibrium I'd rather err on the side of caution.
Even if 'erring on the side of caution' means killing millions of people by diverting resources that could've been used to cure diseases, solve local pollution problems, stop crime and democide, improve work safety, etc etc?
We're not talking about packing an extra sandwich for a picnic here. These things cost.
You assert forcefully, but I think there are problems with what you say: firstly there is no guarantee that we would spend the money saved on global warming on those other things that you list; secondly it's false to assert that we have to choose between those things and fixing global warming; thirdly efforts to fix global warming could have benefits of their own including in some of the areas that you list, i.e. malaria is likely to increase due to rises in temperature, efficiency measures and reductions in consumption could help cure pollution problems.