The economic evidence is pretty clear that:
How many people are even vaguely aware of this?
And if we are being paragons of science, under what conditions would “scientists” actually recommend subsidizing the activities that promote global warming if indeed the outcomes are going to end up being good? No economist I know of, by the way, endorses such a rigorous view of efficiency, but the thought question is worth asking.
‘Under what conditions would “scientists” actually recommend subsidizing the activities that promote global warming if indeed the outcomes are going to end up being good?’
Probably only if all species were considered in the calculations and if the timeline went much longer into the future.
Alex, of course you mean that ironically, right?
Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that actual climate scientists shouldn’t be recommending subsidizing anything because they’re not qualified. No, in the sense that the “scientists” I thought WC was referring to, i.e. lay people who proclaim to understand the science behind why global warming is so terrible, probably really do care about keeping other animals/species alive and also about a world far more in the future than 2100.