Cost of inaction ‘far greater’ than that of averting climate disaster, warns Prince Charles
That’s not actually the useful question. Instead, it’s which actions will have the lowest costs?
It is, for example, possible that government doing nothing is still the lowest cost solution. Given what government proposes to do in fact it’s likely this is so.
It might also be that a carbon tax – yes, I know – would be the lowest cost option. Government does the one thing, simple enough even for government to do, then everyone else acts under that incentive.
But rather more important than either of those possibilities is that the current argument is wrong. Because what is being said is that dealing with climate change will be cheaper than ignoring it. OK, that might be true. But the leap is then made to dealing with it means following my plan. That ain’t so – the plan still needs examination for whether that’s the best thing to be doing.
We must do something. This is something so we must do this thing is not sound logic.