Philip Stott

To combat global climate change, green activists and consumers are calling for major reductions in carbon emissions. Proponents argue that the effects of climate change, like the loss of rainfall and the spread of disease, will be catastrophic unless we act now. On the other hand, opponents say that this global issue cannot be addressed without international cooperation and spending vast American resources on emission programs misallocates resources without substantial benefit.  Are reductions in carbon emissions worth the money?

Global warming has sparked widespread alarm over the fate of the planet. Proponents argue that, unless we invest substantial economic and political resources into combating global warming, earth will be irrevocably damaged and human existence as a whole will be threatened. Should we trust current models to project the state of the Earth in 100 years, or 1,000 years? Does the science really add up?  Are we endangering future generations by failing to act?