Why does the debate continue to be pay to fight climate change or … don’t?

We continue to hear ” fighting climate change is to expensive” in one form or another. 

Problem is that this looks at this issue wrong. Sure, right now it is pay to fight or not, but if we don’t in a couple of decades our children will have to pay terms of times more to undo or damage.

In other words, the decision is pay a little now, or make our children pay huge amounts.

What parent makes that decision? What will future generations make of our collective ambivalence?

Through out history, parents have fought to give their offspring a better life – without urgent expensive action, we are going to leave our children a world far harder to live in than we had.

What is worse, there are significant savings to be made by this change – savings that would offset a great deal of the cost. Once these are taken into account the impact of these changes is estimated (by the OBR) to fall from 1.5% to just 0.4% a reduction of 75%.

These are moves we have to make of we care about the future of planet earth, and or descendants. 

When people claim it is too expensive to act, the response should be had people acted thirty years ago the cost would be lower, if we don’t act now the cost to our descendents will be crippling.

As a parent, it baffles me that anyone behave without any thought to how that impacts future generations. Furthermore, many of the best moves to fight climate change also save significant money on your fuel bills, as such, if you care nothing about your descendants surely you care about your own bills.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

See Animals Wild