should governments intervene in climate change?

so I'm doing a qualification for my essay, I'm doing a counter-argument on why governments should and shouldn't prevent climate change. for example yes governments should intervene in climate change because life expectancy will reduce over time and no governments should not as factories that produce a big amount of co2 provide jobs for people. does anyone have any points on why governments should or shouldn't do anything? any point will help me. evidence like an article attached would be very helpful

Reply 1

JOSH4598

15

You'll probably struggle more with the counter points for obvious reasons. One you could include is the economic opportunity cost of government investment in tackling climate change. The huge cost of converting to green energy or subsidising clean transport etc means that money can't go elsewhere (eg: to the emergency services, healthcare, welfare system).

Reply 2

dinomedic

18

you could talk about so much.

climate change will affect people of low socioeconomic status the most, particularly the global south. global warming is increasing food insecurity and natural disasters and will only continue to get worse.

100 companies are responsible for 71% of all emissions, and they will not do anything to reduce this unless they are forced to, as they care more about profit than peoples lives. currently many first world government subsidise these companies (fossil fuel industry) due to lobbying and corruption.

https://www.activesustainability.com/climate-change/100-companies-responsible-71-ghg-emissions/

https://www.greenhousepr.co.uk/fossil-fuel-lobbyists-during-covid-19/

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/23/uk-has-biggest-fossil-fuel-subsidies-in-the-eu-finds-commission

https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/climateinsights2020-natural-disasters/

https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-5/

Reply 3

Kromt

1

If you want to find more arguments against intervention you need to check some libertarian sources. They will provide enough arguments for you

Reply 4

dalixh

OP

6

Original post by JOSH4598

You'll probably struggle more with the counter points for obvious reasons. One you could include is the economic opportunity cost of government investment in tackling climate change. The huge cost of converting to green energy or subsidising clean transport etc means that money can't go elsewhere (eg: to the emergency services, healthcare, welfare system).