Or it might be the scientist educated and experienced right now, who can't get the funding to test her ideas.But the person who figures out how to lick the carbon problem might be a two-year-old kid in Malawi right now.
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.