I’m skeptical of the notion that climate change is being driven by human activity . . . and thoroughly unconvinced that the planet will continue to warm causing catastrophic results.
But what if? If the globe is warming, what to do about it?
For starters, sell your beach house in Florida. Global warming means ice sheets melting, oceans rising, shoreline lost.
But for those of us without the beach house, what is the cost of global warming compared to the cost of fixing the problem?
Bjorn Lomborg, author of the book, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming, looked at this question and concluded that solving the problem of climate change is not cost-effective.
Lomborg is indeed concerned about warming and says that in an ideal world we’d “solve it.” But he says we have to set priorities, and that “[w]hat we can do about [global warming] is very little at a very high cost.”
In a Washington Post column, Lomborg warned that the damage done — especially to the world’s poor — by cutting carbon emissions will far outweigh the benefits. The estimated cost from projected climate damage is $1.1 trillion dollars. The projected expense of cutting enough emissions to avoid that damage is $46 trillion.
I’m skeptical about global warming. But spending $46 for every buck saved takes me well beyond skepticism. I’m against any such idiotic plan. If we must have catastrophe, I prefer the cheaper one.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.