Replies

The consensus was that communicable diseases, sanitation and water, malnutrition and hunger, and education were all higher priorities than climate change.

Climate change has the potential to directly influence affect all of these except education. Vector-borne diseases are affected by the ecological distribution of the vector, particularly insects or rodents. (Hantavirus outbreaks are tied to regional climate, especially precipitation.) Sanitation and water are affected by water supply, and in many areas mountain glaciers, which are diminishing, are a significant water supply. Malnutrition and hunger are related to food supply, and climate change has the potential to shift where crops grow and how well crops do in different regions (see what's happening in Australia right now!).

So if there was $50 billion to spend, most of it should be spent on improving the current situation, and some of it should be spent on long-term planning.

The second point is that the Stern report barely mentions the potential benefits from warming in the world's cold-weather regions. Al Gore and others warn about the damage from coastal flooding and changing weather patterns, among other horror scenarios. But the world is large and its climate diverse, and a longer growing season in Siberia or Canada is at least one possible benefit of warming. The Stern report also dismisses any chance of moderate warming (meaning temperatures in 2100 only two to three degrees Celsius higher than in 1900), even though many climate models say this is in fact the most likely outcome.

The predicted horrible consequences of global warming are way overblown, and in my opinion are the weakest part of the whole global warming argument.

Before we spend $ trillions chasing this ghost we better be damn sure it is going to yield some benefit.