We need to go from hindsight to foresight, no matter what it is it is an issue that impacts us all. And, we find Climate skeptics are a bore. They focus on quantifying an antithesis, and the evidence keeps mounting that they are always being proven ill-informed. Regardless of the disagreements the “how” of Stern’s argument is still valid, calculating today’s prevention costs against future damage costs.
It could as well be applied to the debate about the existence of man-made climate change – The IPCC is now 99 percent certain that it exists.
Even if it was a likely hypothesis that deniers be true: That, as they decry, the money spent on developing a response to climate change was in vain and achieved no real difference to climatic conditions. CO2Land org says would it not be that the money is well spent when the new products available to the world enhance capacity building, are the result of finding energy alternatives, increase energy efficiency, provide forest protection, reforestation, coastal protection, glacier melting water management, zero waste management, increasing disaster resilience and many other activities that are sensible for a bunch of other reasons? They would be a benefit even if climate change were not a reality.
So instead of boring us with criticism, be productive and calculate the real damage from erring on a macro-economic scale. And, consider the paradigm of wasted opportunity and how you would apply discount costs for finding and implementing alternative energy sources 50 years from now, when oil and gas are or will become scarce? That is when it is too late even to adapt to what is obvious now! As friends recently retorted: It is time to be a doer, we are sick of the gonna (slang for talk about and do nothing)