Copenhagen: Do it for a better tomorrow

Here is a comic that says it all. (H/t to Pharyngula.)

Some people look only at the possible temporary economic setback during a transition to a greener economy (never mind the fact that an economic depression is the perfect time for government investment into new industries to increase the flow of money and to diversify the economy). Some people take the anthropogenic global warming as an implied condemnation of their lifestyles, and thus argue against the science with tooth and nail. Some people are too invested in the fossil fuel industry to want greener alternatives to succeed.

At the same time, there are many other benefits to switching to a greener economy, many listed in the comic, even if one disregards the impact of burning fossil fuels to the climate. Not directly listed is the fact that reducing our consumption of fossil fuels will preserve the world's "one-time gift" (as Dr. David Suzuki would put it) for other uses as they may come up. (For example, many plastics are made from fossil fuels.) In a sense, burning fossil fuels has been a quick fix for the developed world's energy needs. Longer-term solutions will rely on renewable sources of energy (at least renewable when ignoring far future events, such as the death of the Sun, or the likely radiation heat death of the universe).

The monetary arguments for inaction are boggling. Countries keep standing armies and weapons of war just in case, and they cost billions (or more) annually to do little or nothing. (This doesn't include the costs of actually waging war, which is much more... like hundreds of billions.) The scientific consensus is that the world is slowly advancing toward a climate change catastrophe, whether it occurs fifty or a hundred years from now. One would think that the threat of an impending global catastrophe would be enough to spend money to avert (by changing our lifestyles and going greener) or prepare (through new geoengineering methods). A military may not ever go to war (although it may be employed for peacekeeping) but costs billions. War only causes death and destruction, but costs hundreds of billions to wage.

Why does trying to avert a potential climate catastrophe not deserve significant monetary investment?

Canada is not even considered to be a nation serious about dealing with climate change anymore. Why does preserving one precious resource (tar sands and oil reserves) trump the development of other precious resources (lots of land, lots of wind potential in many places, many rivers, etc.)?

Peace and long life.