This is the logic that underpins my work on sustainable cost accounting. In it the concepts of deferral and discounting, implicit in almost all current financial modelling, are replaced by current accounting and compounding i.e. the provisions for the cost of climate change are made now, because if they are not they simply increase.
By this standard we should never have had the steam engine. The cost of compounding Newcomen since 1712 is pretty high. And agriculture over the 8,000 years since Ur of the Chaldees?
It also goes entirely against everything Nordhaus, Weizman, Stern etc have told us about the costs and benefits of climate change action or not action. Even, we know that the price of solutions is falling – solar, wind etc are still getting cheaper – and therefore we have some complexity here, it’s cheaper to solve in the future as against greater damages costs of not solving now.
But that would be a sophisticated consideration of the problem not a Snippate one.