Comment of the day comes from 99, on the subject of climate
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.