What should we do about climate change?

Funds used for fighting climate change should be redirected to better causes

Question: What should we do about climate change?
Position‹2 of 5›: We shouldn't do anything to address climate change
Argument1 of 2›: Funds used for fighting climate change should be redirected to better causes

There is never enough money for governments and international organizations to address all of the world population’s needs. However, we are currently spending an inordinate amount of money fighting climate change while other issues are underfunded. This misdirected money needs to be reallocated to better help people suffering today.

The argument

We are currently spending a phenomenal amount of money to fight climate change. In the United States alone, the government has directed $154 billion towards the issue since 1993. We’re still spending this kind of money, with contestable success. In the meantime, there are more pressing issues that need to be funded; like fighting hunger, expanding healthcare, and bettering education. The money mentioned above needs to be redirected towards these issues because they effect the current, living population. Climate change is not currently killing anyone; famines are. Without an unlimited amount of money in the world, we need to triage where it goes. In short, it’s not reasonable to spend so much money trying to protect the future population when the current one is suffering. The United Nations claims it could immediately eliminate world hunger with a mere $116 billion a year. Is that not more important than climate change research and efforts? This argument assumes that governments have a finite amount of money at their disposable, which is the state of affairs for most modern, sustainable governments. Even when they take loans, they do not have unlimited funds. This fact is why government money for climate change needs to be reallocated rather than increased or maintained.

Context

We know climate change is happening due to the rapid warming of the planet and an influx of extreme weather . We also know that climate change is caused by humans’ greenhouse gas emissions . If we want to continue living on our planet as it is, scientists say we must stop climate change, but no one can agree on how to do so. People have been fiercely debating the issue for decades, but coming to a consensus is imperative so as to stop vacillating on our response to climate change because that wastes money and energy.

Premises

[P1]Proponents argue governments have finite funds and have spent enormous sums—$154 billion in the US since 1993—on climate change with contestable success. [P2] They contend more pressing problems affecting the living population, such as hunger (which the UN says $116 billion a year could end), healthcare and education, deserve that money more, so it should be triaged and redirected. [C] Therefore, on this view, funds spent fighting climate change should be redirected to better causes rather than spent addressing climate change.

Counter-arguments

According to all of the world’s scientists, we only have until 2030 to stop climate change. Otherwise, it will be irreversible and people will begin to die due to the subsequent famines, droughts, rising sea levels, and extreme weather as early as 2040. The key is that what is going to happen post-2030 very much effects the current population. Most people under 50 will live past 2040, and could suffer lethal or catastrophic impacts on their lives due to climate change. This means that fighting climate change is as important and life-sustaining an issue as education, healthcare, or stopping hunger. Neglecting climate change entirely and allowing it to continue on unimpeded will mean that we’ll have to spend more money down the line to deal with its inevitable effects. Doing nothing about climate change is a short-sighted solution.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The figure covers three decades and a range of programmes including basic research, and "contestable success" is an assertion rather than an assessment — the premise offers no measure against which the spending has failed. [Rejecting P2] The triage argument assumes these compete for one fixed pot, when hunger, health and education carry their own budgets many times larger; and the claim that climate change "is not currently killing anyone" is the empirical assertion everything turns on, offered without support, while the counter's point that deferred costs are not avoided costs goes unanswered.