It’s just too expensive to stop climate change

The argument

The United States government spent $106.7 billion from 2003 to 2010 fighting climate change . This is an absurd sum of money given what’s been accomplished. Current money allocated for climate change efforts in the United States consists of a great deal of research funding. This expensive, decades-long research has merely produced information confirming that global warming is getting worse, and given us ominous predictions for the future . Yet this research has not helped us determine how to stop climate change. If we actually wanted to stop climate change, the money spent researching it should be redirected towards building a renewable energy infrastructure since we already know that fossil fuel emissions worsen climate change. However, completely switching our energy sector to renewable energy is not feasible because of the price. All of our cars and transportation systems would have to be overhauled to be electric. We would have to somehow shut down the coal and oil industries and build solar, wind, and hydroelectric power plants in their place. The U.S. national debt is currently over $22 trillion . We are not in a position to keep pouring money into fighting climate change when there are so many other items in the federal budget that need funding. This argument rests on the fact that the money spent on stopping climate change has not produced any helpful results. In light of this, the United States’ climate budget has been wasted. It does not make sense to continue funding something that has resulted in no viable solutions for climate change. Money allocated for climate change mitigation is better spent elsewhere in a way that actually benefits citizens.

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

Counter-arguments

Part of the scientific method is accepting that a great many experiments will not be successful - meaning that you won’t get the result you need to better understand the problem at hand. That’s what’s happening to climate scientists. They have accomplished a great deal over the last decade in determining a timeline for the progression of climate change. It’s not their fault that we don’t like the solution they proposed. We do have to switch to renewable energy to halt climate change. If we want another option, we have to give climate scientists more time and funding to find it. Furthermore, climate change funding is as important as funding for any other issue that impacts citizens. We live on the earth. As it deteriorates because of our inaction, citizens’ quality of life will worsen. Governments must either stop climate change or deal with it when it gets worse. And prevention is usually cheaper, so the money spent today on stopping climate change is money well spent.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise is wrong about what the money bought and about what would count as a solution. The research established attribution, climate sensitivity and the timeline, which is what makes any policy choice possible — and it did identify how to stop it: reduce emissions. The complaint is that the answer is unwelcome, not that it is missing. The sum is also small against the comparison the argument needs, at roughly $13 billion a year within a federal budget measured in trillions. [Rejecting P2] The cost figures are dated and the trend runs the other way. Utility-scale solar and onshore wind costs fell by roughly 80 and 60 per cent over the past decade and are now the cheapest new generation in most markets, with electric vehicles following battery costs down; the premise treats a transition spanning decades as a single purchase made today. It also counts one side only, omitting the cost of not acting — damage, adaptation, insurance and agricultural loss — which is exactly what a claim about expense requires. [Rejecting P3] The national debt is not a fixed pot from which climate spending subtracts, and the premise never says what the money would otherwise buy. The conclusion also overshoots: "too expensive to stop" would at most argue for a different allocation, not for spending nothing.