The Daily Daily: Economics and Climate Change

Trying to tell people that Climate Change is a problem and must be addressed is like trying to tell people that they should save for their retirement.  No one does it until it is comfortable to do so and, even then, they really don’t want to do it. The long term benefits of it aren’t as easy to see as the short term problems associated with it.  Thus, why the newly elected House of Representives is eyeing Climate Change iniatives as a place to cut spending to save money.  Stabbing out your eye because what you see looks really bad.  From McClatchy.

The American climate debate has been focused on economic interests — whether actions to reduce fossil fuel use would create or eliminate jobs. Meanwhile, an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, driven mainly by fossil fuel use, poses a rising risk of climate disruptions around the globe. “There is an enormous failure, in my view, to see the ethical and moral dimensions of this issue,” said Donald Brown, a professor of environmental ethics at Penn State University. “It’s very difficult for people in the United States to see that self-interest is an important consideration, but we also have responsibilities to people in Africa.” Brown argues that farmers facing worsening drought in African countries are the first victims of a changing climate, and that every year of delay in slashing U.S. emissions makes helping them harder. Politicians give two reasons not to act to restrict emissions — it would cost too much, and there are uncertainties about what the exact effect of climate change will be.

I’ve yelled and screamed about it before, so I don’t see a point in repeating myself.  But think about 2010.  Think about all the crazy storms, the fires in Russia when there are never fires, the Floods in Pakistan, the intensity of our snow storms, the floods in Australia.  They are all linked together and they are going to get worse unless we do something.  But doing something isn’t very easy to do.