Climate change

[The Grand Nudger]

And I'm saying there are more important needs for the health and wellbeing of our 10 billion people (by 2100) than the CO2 level - and those are water security; population resettlement; and food security. Those are the things I believe should be prioritised.

Not to mention I think that $90 million could have been much better allocated than chasing the dubious promise of a new form of energy. We could have spent that on foreign aid; on water security; on helping the disadvantaged in our country; or on plenty of other far more deserving causes.

Agreed, water security is a thing.  Changes to rainfall patterns globally won't help us solve that.  Population resettlement is a thing, changes to habitible zones won't help us solve that.  Food security is a thing, and disruption of climate zones, rainfall patterns, and arable land won't help us to solve that.  I'll say this, definitively, climate change does not pose any challenge that we are not equipped to handle (try to think of anything that the climate could bring that we do not, currently, have a solution for...it's pretty much what we do...eh?). We (as in the 1st world) won't, of course, handle any of those things until they inconvenience us. Imagine the cost of full cover, irrigated production for staple crops? Imagine the cost of resettling vast swaths of third world populations in the face of desertification (which has been a thing we've been ignoring forever, while people starve and die of thirst)? Imagine the cost of drilling miles deep wells in areas so that they can support ag and human pops(africa has this in spades - it is, bar none, the best place on earth to grow food and has a crushing majority of all remaining arable land on earth), deep water that's far too expensive to pull up unless it's our interests rather than "their" lives? Climate change is a massive added cost to all of those things you mentioned as being higher on your list of priorities......as you've noticed......we recieve little benefit. Bit like a hazmat team scraping the roadside for miles after a chemical spill. Phenomenal cost, little to no benefit. Does that mean that we should stop cleaning up those spills and focus on repaving the road instead? Cost, cost, cost cost cost........honestly, I think the problem we currently have is that we put too much stock in what improving our global situation would cost......... do we value life so little?

Could have spent 90million on any of the current energy alternatives that we have, as well.  Thing is, 90million is a drop in the bucket, and if we're talking about solving any of these problems, and we don't actually have to choose between any of them. When we put them on opposite ends of the seesaw and try to determine which one is "more deserving" we're simply deciding the level of indifference to human suffering that we are comfortable with - because our pockets aren't that shallow....

Most of the time, in these exchanges, I end up on the other side of the line. Climate alarmist says "We're all gonna die!" - I say...not unless we give up, but here we are, talking cost....so, if that;s the metric...yeah, we're all gonna fuckin die after all, because "cost" has been killing us for generations, and I doubt it's gonna stop now. It has the kind of proven track record it would be foolish to argue against.