No one is saying that we should devote 100% of GDP to mitigating global warming. Go ahead, factor in the uncertainty. What % of GDP should we spend to avert the very real possibility catastrophic warning occurs? What % are we spending?
If it were left up to me, I would say we should have zero forced spending and an unlimited amount of voluntary spending to avert a potential global warming catastrophe.
Let me remind you, that at any time you are free to donate any amount of your own money to thwart global warming. That's not what some people really want though. They don't want to spend their own money on the problem. They want to spend other people's money on the problem. And I contend we don't know nearly enough about the issue to cross that line.
I'll be happy to agree not to force anyone else to spend their money to avert global warming. But there is one additional provision I'll require: I must be free to shoot anyone harming me by contributing to global warming.
Only if you and all the other folks who are convinced of a need to act on global warming choose to do nothing. The reality is that even among those who think "we" need to act, most do not even have enough conviction on the matter to volunteer to spend a dime of their own money on it.
Because the world's climate is a public good, game theory predicts that this kind of thing won't ever work.
We are semi-rational actors in a dynamic competitive system. We can all want X to happen, and be willing to spend money to make X happen, but realize that doing so would make our own lives worse because of the non-participation of others, and so we contribute to making X happen not directly, but instead by trying to put rules in place that enforce participation.
