5 ms·
This assumes that the cost of fixing the climate doesn't grow faster than economic growth, and that brute work (enormous masses of chemicals, etc) is not essent
by ajb 13y ago
This assumes that the cost of fixing the climate doesn't grow faster than economic growth, and that brute work (enormous masses of chemicals, etc) is not essential for fixing the climate. The amount of brute work we can does not necessarily grow with GDP.
Suppose we detect an asteroid which will very likely hit the earth. You might make the same argument. But in the case of an asteroid, the amount of force required to divert it from its path is trivial when it is a long way away, as it becomes closer, grows until it is impossible.
Fortunately, in the case of an asteroid, this fact is calculable today. It would be a pity if when we have 'much more accurate climate models' it turns out to be too late.
- smsm42 13y agoIt would be much more pity if it turns out we spent trillions of dollars (meaning those trillions of dollars weren't spent on healing people, feeding people, inventing technologies that make people live longer and suffer less from diseases) on something that turned out to be not much more than a blob of hot air expelled by attention-seeking politicians and didn't really require that much resources to be spent on it. Take the example of rich people buying "carbon credits" that go towards paying poor people in poor countries for not developing their economies (and thus not becoming rich too). I think it is economically inefficient (since it in the long run decreases the overall value produced) but it is also morally reprehensible to bribe someone into suppressing their economic development so you could enjoy yours without guilt. It would be especially bad if it turns out the guilt was over nothing.
- drharris 13y agoI agree with this in theory, but in practice there's no way a government/economy will take those dollars and magically spend them on causes that actually benefit humanity. More likely they go to the war machine, welfare state, and other bureaucratic money pits. Given that, it's probably not a bad thing to spend that money on things that benefit our ecosystem.
- smsm42 13y agoI personally find the position of "you're going to waste the money anyway, so at least make me feel good" very cynical.