The best argument AGAINST acting on Climate Change

The best argument AGAINST acting on Climate Change

Here is a very interesting presentation from TED about the world’s problems, how big the problem is and how much it would cost to fix them.  They prioritized things like communicable diseases, sanitation, AIDS and global warming.  According to a group of economists fighting climate change by adhering to the Kyoto protocol would cost a lot with very little benefit.


His argument appears to be far more convincing than others that oppose fighting climate change.  One thing that I found curious they used Kyoto and I’m assuming a $100/tonne carbon tax as the base response for fighting climate change.  A $100/tonne carbon tax would cost my family over $2000 a year right now.  Kyoto by itself is very expensive and won’t do much.  It is pretty clear that to effectively fight climate change we would need at least a 70% if not 80% reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050.  When discussing costs and priorities this is scenario we should look at.  Every study I’ve read has concluded that  limiting the rise in temperature to less than 2 degrees celcius cost a lot less than dealing with the consquences.  I’d be interested to know how they framed each issue.  Do they take in to the consideration the long term cost savings of energy effeciency and reneable energy technology? 

That being said it does look like fighting things like Malaria and AIDS seems to be comparably easy to do.  I’m going to take steps to reduce my CO2 emissions because most of them save me money over the long term.  Right now the only thing that actually costs more is paying a 25% premium ($15 /month) for green power from Saskatoon Light and Power

Perhaps I should consider prioritizing some of my giving so that these other easier to solve problems get some more cash.  Unicef makes it easy.

Comments are closed.