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.