We agree that you cannot buy an iPhone and also give the same money to starving kids. Spending some dollars wisely does not justify spending other dollars unwisely. Cost-benefit analysis should help us spend each available dollar in the most effective way possible, which should take into consideration both the merit of the benefit and the certainty of obtaining it. It's a crude argument that merely tots up body counts, but as long as you have provided numbers: 1,300 flooding in the Jammu and Kashmir regions of India and Pakistan 9,000 earthquake in Nepal 4,500 deadliest heat wave in 35 years in southern India and Pakistan 400,000 drought in Ethiopia (if similar to 1980s drought) The total is 421,800. Let's assume that every one of these deaths is entirely due to climate change and would not have happened if effective climate change mitigation were in place. Compare to 500,000 deaths from malaria in 2013. Surely it is better to research better sequestration methods than to sprinkle stone dust in the jungle. But we should also consider the evidence that a child's life can be saved today for about $2,838. It's not a simple calculus. Malaria is unlikely to ever kill billions. But the person who figures out how to lick the carbon problem might be a two-year-old kid in Malawi right now."You bought a new iPhone, you could have given that money to starving kids in Africa." Or, I could do both.
Climate change is a threat that kills millions of people today.
7,000 typhoons Haiyan and HagupitBut we may discover a new way to sequester which costs 10% of that tomorrow. Or 1%. At this point, I absolutely argue we should put money toward researching better sequestration methods, not using existing ones.
Good point, we just don't know! No doubt we should spend some money on research. For the price of two or three dead children a week, we can keep the scientist busy in the lab. Is it crass and heartless to express it that way, or is it crass and heartless to say we must budget for research without mentioning the opportunity cost? It's still a long shot. Maybe there is no good solution, and future generations will just have to deal with it. Sorry, kids! But the scientist probably has a better chance of getting good results than some random toddler. A difference we should remember, though: if we fund the scientist, she can work on researching climate change instead of researching plate tectonics (which seems to be a bit of a fuzzy science, at the moment). If we fund the toddler, she can have a fifth birthday and learn to play soccer, instead of ... not.