Global warming: Cure is better than prevention

Generally speaking, humanity is lousy at prevention. We all know that if we do certain things, then undesirable outcomes are possible/probable. But they tend to happen anyway, because we argue about them for so long. This is exacerbated by both democracy (argue for even longer) and authoritarianism (stop the argument & then ignore it). It's human nature. A side-effect of this is that businesses cannot plan effectively, as they don't know whether the mechanisms for prevention will (a) be decided, (b) work, or (c) how much they'll cost.

On the other hand, we're actually quite good at fixing things once they've gone wrong. The process of problem-solving is much less argumentative & theoretical when the problem is actually current. Compromises & expediency become much more feasible, resources get allocated more quickly, and crucially, the level of certainty involved usually means that someone can make money out fixing it.

Thus it is with global warming.

Basically, it's inevitable. Things we do now might stop it getting worse over time, if we agree on them. Obviously, this is something worth pursuing, even though the costs will be huge.

But now we know what's about to happen, surely it is the right time to ensure that a significant - maybe even majority - of the necessary spend & investment goes into things which mitigate the effects. New forms of dam or levee. Land reclamation in Bangladesh. Development of agricultural practices that actually benefit from climate change. Yes, "benefit". The dirty word that never gets spoken - I cannot believe that there are not some things that can emerge as positive, the proverbial silver lining in the cloud. Yet we are spending 100% of our efforts fruitlessly trying to prevent the cloud from forming.

I challenge someone to write up a report on "The Economic Benefits of Global Warming". Sure, it'll be contentious, and will still need many references to the costs (both economic and human). But there are two sides to every story.