I’m old school liberal but I guess people would call me conservative today because I support free speech. My stance on this is that climate change is real but its actual impact is not catastrophic. We’re not facing impending doom. Best predictions are global average temperatures increasing 2-4 degrees centigrade by 2100.%20by%202100.) Weather events will become a little more severe. Some arable areas will become smaller.
On the other hand, millions of people die each year of starvation alone. Millions more from preventable diseases and illnesses. On balance, given the world has finite resources, I believe we should immediately take every cent spent on combating climate change and spend it on saving lives now. By comparison, climate change is estimated to lead to up to 250,000 additional deaths per year by 2050. The business case here is crystal clear. Our priorities are completely misaligned with saving human life.
This discussion inevitably devolves into “just do EVERYTHING all at once.” While a fine idea, there is only so much money to go around. We can argue that we should tax the rich more, and I would agree, but Western countries are democracies. People vote for what they think is reasonable. So we really are working with finite resources. We should spend that money where it will save the greatest number of human lives.
It’s so mad that this has become an issue split on party lines. Margaret Thatcher’s 1989 speech to the UN General assembly, setting out the serious threat of climate change and how international cooperation is vital to avoid disaster is worth listening to. (I detest almost all of Thatcher’s economic and social policies).
I’m old school liberal but I guess people would call me conservative today because I support free speech. My stance on this is that climate change is real but its actual impact is not catastrophic. We’re not facing impending doom. Best predictions are global average temperatures increasing 2-4 degrees centigrade by 2100.%20by%202100.) Weather events will become a little more severe. Some arable areas will become smaller.
On the other hand, millions of people die each year of starvation alone. Millions more from preventable diseases and illnesses. On balance, given the world has finite resources, I believe we should immediately take every cent spent on combating climate change and spend it on saving lives now. By comparison, climate change is estimated to lead to up to 250,000 additional deaths per year by 2050. The business case here is crystal clear. Our priorities are completely misaligned with saving human life.
This discussion inevitably devolves into “just do EVERYTHING all at once.” While a fine idea, there is only so much money to go around. We can argue that we should tax the rich more, and I would agree, but Western countries are democracies. People vote for what they think is reasonable. So we really are working with finite resources. We should spend that money where it will save the greatest number of human lives.