[cgranade]

Given how much we spend on entertainment and other luxuries, is it really fair to say call spending money on what is likely essential to the preservation of our species "literally stealing food and medicine from people's mouths?" Hell, given what we spend on killing each other over oil and religion, how is it that spending money on understanding and dealing with climate change is stealing? In the United States alone, we have spent over $600 billion on the Iraq war-- even a few of those billions could make the difference between action and inaction on climate change.

[robotrout]

You're unhappy with the amount we spend on entertainment and the Iraq war, and would like us to divert all the money towards global warming mitigation. Perhaps we could cork some volcanoes or do some cloud seeding to induce some rainstorms to get rid of water vapor. Let's take your $600 billion that you say would make a huge difference.

As we're writing the check to the cloud-seeding company, or the volcano corking company, it occurs to you, that there's a lot of things you could do with this money. You could use it to try to stop Iraq from developing biological weapons to kill hundred of thousands with, for instance. Or, if you knew more than the French, the Israelis, and the U.S. did, or just didn't think that was a problem you cared about (let him do it, it's no skin off your nose), you still might think "Wow, I could buy DDT for every man, woman, and child in Africa with this, and save millions of lives." Or, if you didn't want to do that, since DDT is evil and might kill birds, you might think "I could build desalination plants to get the water to feed hungry people in arid climates. and give them relief now, not in 100 years."

When you have the checkbook in your hand, and you are considering choosing to spend the money on volcano corking, or, god forbid, something actually foolish, you may, instead, say "Hey, maybe we should be sure before we blow this money." I think if I gave you the checkbook, you'd think a lot differently than when somebody else has the checkbook.

[thaumaturgy]

Seeing a comment like this on a forum like this makes me sad.

First, economics isn't a zero-sum game. You could waste that check away on destroying a country and impoverishing millions due to the threat of imaginary weapons, or you could build something.

For a long time I thought wind farms were surely wasteful forms of energy. I thought about all of the energy required to manufacture them, install them, and maintain them, and compared that -- in my mind -- against all of the idle wind generators that I saw at farms like the Altamont and whatever huge one there is down in southern California.

Then I got some real numbers, and it turns out that I was pretty dramatically wrong: wind energy actually provides an even better energy-return-on-investment than nuclear energy.

So, potentially, that $600 billion could be spent building cheaper forms of energy generation using existing technology, and developing new technology, and now you've just made a steep initial investment that will pay returns for the rest of our society's existence.

That, to me, sounds like one heck of a good deal. And it's good for the environment too.

[1]: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_(...

[anamax]

> even a few of those billions could make the difference between action and inaction on climate change.

Really? If we spent $20B on global warming you'd go away happy?

> is it really fair to say call spending money on what is likely essential to the preservation of our species

Interestingly enough, if you read the cost estimates from the advocates, it's reasonably cheap to deal with the problem after it occurs, at least compared to the total global GDP at that time.

The only way you get to "spend now" vs "spend later" on an economic basis is by using a negative rate of return.

[cgranade]

Of course it'd take more than $20 billion over the span of our lifetimes. I meant that within the context of the Iraq War spending, diverting even a few of those 600 billions of dollars could have made a very positive impact and would have meant that Bush was not completely inactive on the issue. I realize I phrased that poorly, and I'm sorry for that, but my point still stands: compared to what we spend on killing each other, the money that is being asked to save our whole way of life is chump change. Moreover, the issue of climate change runs much deeper than economics alone. Talking about rates of return and deferred action neglect the potential for catastrophe if we simply continue to do nothing.

[anamax]

> would have meant that Bush was not completely inactive on the issue.

Actually, he wasn't. He didn't do what you want, but that's a very different than nothing. Are you going with ignorance or "I was trying to emphasize my point"?

> I realize I phrased that poorly, and I'm sorry for that, but my point still stands: compared to what we spend on killing each other, the money that is being asked to save our whole way of life is chump change

The mainstream folks who want money for climate change disagree. They want hundreds of billions of dollars.

If they're wrong, that's a huge deal. Let's see some details supporting your "chump change" estimate. Are they wrong?

> Moreover, the issue of climate change runs much deeper than economics alone. Talking about rates of return and deferred action neglect the potential for catastrophe if we simply continue to do nothing.

Catastrophe is short-hand for "very expensive", so you're merely making a "numbers-free" economic argument.

The AGW folks have predicted the costs of "catastrophe" and "measures to avoid". (The latter are surely low because they don't significantly affect the predicted climate change.)

Once again, if they're wrong, that's a big deal.

Let's see the details.

[dangoldin]

With deflation it just might happen.