Why I Don't Think we Should be Spending Money on Climate Change.

[SamuelRSmith]

I think some people are failing to see my point, here.

The cost of fighting climate change is very expensive, I don't know exact figures but according to (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm) it's costing around $100k per billionth of a potential degree Celsius saved, as the site points out, it'll cost $100 trillion at this rate to "save" 1 degrees Celcius by 2050

World GDP is ~$60 trillion, world GDP doubles around every 15 years at current trends, which will mean world GDP will be around $164 trillion by 2050.

Looking at these basic facts we can see that it would be a much smarter idea, from a cost-benefit point of view, if we waited until 2050 to tackle the issues. Of course, you have to consider that the longer you wait, the more it's going to cost - but the cost of technology will fall and the power will increase so rapidly that we will find it much easier to tackle climate change then rather than now, meaning that the cost could actually go down.

What I'm saying is that rather than spending $100k to prevent the temperature from potentially rising 1 billionth of a degree by 2050, when it could cost us $75k to do it in the future, we should spend that $100k on fighting malaria, or buying condoms, to stop the spread of HIV/AIDs.

And I'm short-sighted for thinking this way?