Global warming tradeoff

Public policy is all about trade-offs. Economists understand this better than politicians.

... in the history of trade-offs, never has there been a better one than trading a tiny amount of global warming for a massive amount of global prosperity. Earth got about 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer in the 20th century while it increased its GDP by 1,800 percent, by one estimate

Skeptics are heckled for calling attention to global warming scare tactics. But the simple fact is that activists need to hype the threat, and not just because that's what the media demand of them. Their proposed remedies cost so much money - bidding starts at 1 percent of global GDP a year and rises quickly - they have to ratchet up the fear factor just to get the conversation started.

China alone plans on building an additional 2,200 coal plants by 2030. Oh, but because China (like India) is exempt from Kyoto as a developing country, the West will just have to reduce its own emissions even more.

The costs are just too high for too little payoff.

[Jonah Goldberg, Salt Lake Tribune, 08FEB07]

He's obviously working off different assumptions than Al Gore about the impact of not making a significant change.  According to Al, we need to move FAST, or our children will feel the consequences.

The easiest way to avoid problems is to not create them in the first place, so why give China and India a pass? Implement the optimum solution there to begin with.