The Immorality of Current Global Warming Spending

Again in 2013, the world experienced another year where temperatures were well below predicted levels, in spite of ever-rising levels of carbon dioxide.

Now, after a decade and a half of no real warming and temperatures remaining far colder than forecast, we taxpayers can, and should, ask whether governments should continue spending huge ($165 Billion and climbing) amounts of money on something that may not even be a serious threat.

When I saw this piece at climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry’s blog earlier today, I thought my readers would find it interesting. It includes this link to a paper by Rafaella Hillerbrand and Michael Ghil on the morality of huge global warming expenditures.  

Societies (or other subjects) are able to part only with a certain amount of money or other resources for predominantly altruistic goals, of which the mitigation of major changes in future climate is only one. Investing in the mitigation of climate-change effects means forgoing other investments, e.g. the reduction of world poverty, towards which we have a moral obligation. For example, on the one hand, the Stern report famously mentions 1% of global gross domestic product (GDP) as the sum needed to avoid major hazards that may arise from climate change. This amounts to an investment of US $ 450 billion per year, if we base the calculation on the current GDP value. On the other hand, current estimates of the money needed to provide 80% of rural populations in Africa with access to water and sanitation by 2015 amounts to only US $ 1.3 billion per annum.

So, increasing the already proliferate spending on global warming to a mind-numbing $450 billion per year versus $1.3 billion per year to bring clean drinking water and modern sanitation to most of the people in Africa who need it. 

Which is the more worthy cause?

According to UNICEF, 6,000 people, mostly children, die each day in Africa from waterborne diseases and poor sanitation! Put another way, by spending 0.29% of the proposed spending on global warming for a speculative goal (we can really control the weather?), we could save 80% of those deaths by using proven technology!

Think about that number: 2,200,000 lives saved 

for less than 1%

of what we are spending on global warming. 

Right now, during the Antarctic summer, we have a bunch of global warming zealots stuck in the ice because they believed their own propaganda about the ice shrinking when it is really growing. Three ships have tried to rescue them without success. Think about the pollution this is adding to the region! Their rescuers have been put in harm's way because of the zealots' disregard for the scientific facts. 

The gray area is normal extent of Antarctic ice. The blue line, which is above normal,
shows the current extent of the ice. 

Global warming is, by far, the biggest flood of gravy in the history of atmospheric science. Institutions, which would not exist if global warming is disproven, continue to sell an increasingly shaky hypothesis. 

It is past time to reconsider how our hard-earned tax dollars are spent. Global warming research, as it is currently conducted, should be severely cut, not increased. 

• Ramp up major efforts to understand how the sun and volcanoes affect our climate and see if we can forecast future trends based on these two effects.
• Cut about ¾ of current greenhouse gas-based research
• Take any savings and put them toward better weather forecasts and storm warnings for the public at large. 

Those are my thoughts as we begin a new year.