Why The Decision to Tackle Global Warming Isn’t Simple

In the face of massive uncertainty, hedging your bets and keeping your options open is almost always the right strategy… A healthy society is constantly scanning the horizon for threats and developing contingency plans to meet them, but the loss of economic and technological development that would be required to eliminate all theorized climate change risk … would cripple our ability to deal with virtually every other foreseeable and unforeseeable risk, not to mention our ability to lead productive and interesting lives in the meantime.

The paragraph above is from the best single analysis I have read that explains why spending huge sums of money to deal with global warming will almost certainly result in a negative return-on-investment. Highly recommended article, just click here.

Consider:

  • The hugely unfavorable cost to benefit ratio explained above
  • The more important environmental problems we face that we know how to solve for a lot less money than global warming (polluted drinking water, malaria, and – in some cases – invasive species, to name three)
The decision not to “tackle” global warming (in the word of the author) is a no-brainer. 

Hat tip: Judy Curry.

Comments are closed.