Arguments Over Carbon Emissions

Comment of the day comes from 99, on the subject of climate change:

No one really seems to be worried about people in the Indo-Gangetic Plain today. Why should we worry about what will happen to them decades in the future?

This is a twist on the Bjorn Lomborg argument. If we're worried about poor people today, we should do something about poor people today – help them get water, education, healthcare, that sort of thing. All of which would have a much more certain and much more immediate beneficial effect than spending the same amount of money on reducing global carbon emissions for the sake of poor people a century hence.

Of course, there are multiple reasons above and beyond poverty reduction to reduce carbon emissions. Which is why Sir Nicholas Stern said at a discussion last week that it's a good idea not to go into too much detail why we should reduce carbon emissions. He used the example of the Declaration: "We hold these truths to be self-evident," wrote Thomas Jefferson, because if you don't give any reasons why, no one can take issue with your argument. Similarly with carbon emissions: best to ride on the consensus which has now evolved that they should be curtailed, rather than get into long arguments about why they should be curtailed.

Add Your Comment

Report Abuse

Archive

Categories

Links