We're talking about hobbling energy development today in order to make the Earth a few degrees cooler for people who will probably have robots fly them to work.
Switching to Markets Could Save You 15 Percent or More on Climate Insurance
A recent piece in The Week on the climate change debate is at once refreshing and disappointing. On the one hand, the author Jeff Spross tries to be fair to the opponents of government intervention into the energy sector. He agrees that they aren't "science deniers" and goes so far as to concede that they know the science as well as the alarmists clamoring for stringent new regulations and taxes.
On the other hand, Spross is still a supporter of vigorous government intervention, and he uses the analogy of insurance to justify his stance. Yet Spross's case is flawed. He misunderstands the IPCC report: the economic damage from popular climate change policies is projected to be 80 times higher than what Spross tells his readers. Furthermore, even on his own terms, Spross hasn't really shown that the popular proposals to combat climate change make sense. Nobody--including Jeff Spross--would buy life or car insurance on these terms.
