I am not debating whether or not climate change is happening, or whether humans are causing it - personally, I believe the former is irrefutable, whilst the latter is true, but not to a massive extent. No, I'm debating that even if it is real, we shouldn't spend much on tackling it.

Why? Because, simply, it's a waste of money. I have two main points:

1) It's simply far too expensive. Tackling climate change will cost a ridiculous amount of money, money that, I believe, can be spent far more effectively on tackling other world ills, such as Malaria, Irrigation and Corruption - you get much more bang for your buck when spending your money in these places, than you would do from spending it on the environment.

2) Other ills are effecting people now, environmental hazards won't be a problem for 50+ years. OK, now this may sound a little selfish: but why do we consider people in the future to be more important than people now? Why are we more worried about London flooding in 70 years time, than about the millions of people who are dying needlessly every year now? What's more, in 50-70 years, we will be richer, we will have technology beyond our wildest dreams, tackling environmental hazards will be far easier then than they are now.

Now, I'm not saying we should continue with our current path. We should still strive for energy efficiency and looking elsewhere from fossil fuels to a) cut costs, and b) lower our dependence on the South East. But we should not be spending billions of pounds on carbon-capturing technology, launching mirrors into space to prevent sun rays, etc, etc, not, least, whilst there are more issues out there that are really effecting people now, and that we can achieve a lot more for our money with.

2008 was the record year for CO2 released by man.

It has been said several times... the more you delay... the more it will costs...

USA and China are using coal now... it is getting worse ...

The problem is bigger than global warming... it is the way we consume the ressources of the south, more than what it can be produced.

You are delaying the problem... just what the North is doing for 40 years now...your kids/grand-gids shall pay for you...

I think we should spend all that money on preventing the world ending in 2012 instead...and eliminating Tyra Banks.

Is that figure trending at a greater pace than world economic growth?

Read my last paragraph 

Like I said in my OP, what makes people not yet born more important than those who are already suffering today? We don't have unlimited resources to spend on aid, so why spend it on the future, when we could spend it (more effectively, as well) on saving people who are alive today? 

So, um, I Google Tyra Banks, and I get this - http://static.fameball.com/imgcache/5/33/0

Are you gay?

isnt this somewhat short sighted, it just makes it more difficult to tackle the problems when they are present in 50 years time?

Malaria, irrigation and corruption are all major problems. Climate change has the potential to be a truly catastrophic problem on a scale far beyond any of them.

Also spending money on prevention will be a lot cheaper than spending money on the problem once its several degrees warmer.

because in 50 years time the damage will be irreversible. Right now we can still fix the problems we've caused.

Twesterm wins the internetz...

Anyway, I think that the money we spend on climate change should be spent on clean energies (not renewable, that's just a buzzword).  It would be an efficient use of the money. In many cases it would be cheaper for the national grid to run clean energy such as nuclear fusion. I realise nuclear fusion is pie in the sky right now, but I think technologies like that will represent the future of power.

Also we should invest in energy harvesting, which would be both cheap and effective.

I think the issue is that most proposals aren't about spending money on climate change. They are more of designed to regulate and penalize those that don't 'go green'.

That is a very bad difference, I think. Rather than invest in technology that can improve life, they are leveraging political power to tax and damage businesses. You cannot tax and regulate your way to innovation.

I agree with Highway that we need to invest money in NEW technologies rather than attack old businesses. Efficiency, and better power production is something that all energy companies can agree on. However, when they are worried that the government will tax them if their solution isn't 'green', then capital expenditures may not go where they're most needed.

Let's invest in nuclear, fission, and other promising technologies. We can have clean, efficient energy. We just have to do it in the name of efficiency and not in the name of a particular quasi-religious movement.