Conversations on economy ignore need for enormous spending to combat global warming

A slight attack of grouchiness, due to being slightly under the weather. I am reading yet another discussion on an economics blog on how to control government spending. But the discussion never gets around to mentioning global warming. Are these guys nuts? Dealing with global warming is going to involve spending huge amounts of money. The only comparable example we have (so far as I know) is WWII and the creation of an economy with one goal. If we don't deal with global warming, the damage it does will cost gazillions. So what is the point of talking about balancing the budget, when we are looking at losing coastal cities to flooding and the Midwest to drought? Snarl.

It's obvious what we need to do: get serious about reducing use to fossil fuels and -- at the same time -- begin to deal with the consequences of CO2 already in the atmosphere. We are going to have to invest in wind power, solar power, geothermal power, massive energy conservation, the building of dykes and flood gates, insulating every house in the country, painting roofs white, reorganizing agriculture to deal with pervasive drought... The list goes on and on and on.

The politicians and pundets are planning to reduce the federal budget, as if none of this is going to happen. As if Katrina and Irene and Sandy have not already happened. As if the Midwest is not already in a drought.

Our primary commenting system uses Facebook logins. If you wish to comment without having a Facebook account, please create an account on this site and log in first. If you are already a registered user, just scroll up to the log in box in the right hand column and log in.

Eleanor Arnason's picture
Eleanor Arnason