The Opportunity Cost of Iraq

This is all about priorities and judgment.

The right has pooh-poohed spending any money to fight Global Warming. They succeeded admirably in turning this issue into a political issue, skillfully using junk science from Big Oil- and OPEC-funded reports to cast doubt upon the reality of Global Warming for years.

'The research is unclear,' they told us. 'More research is needed!' was the rallying cry.

So, they researched while the earth warmed.

In the meantime, the right also turned Iraq into a political issue. W claimed that Iraq was a threat to the very existence of the US, and that we could not waste time doing additional research. We had to act now, he told us in March of 2003. So, he pulled out the UN inspectors and sent in the troops.

Iraq turned out to be no threat to anyone, let alone to the US. At a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars [and mounting at perhaps a billion dollars a day--with no end in sight because W refuses to consider timetables].

Yet, the real threat of Global Warming continues to grow, with no action by the same Bush Maladministration.

What is the real threat, the one W ignored?

The report by chief British government economist Nicholas Stern, a 27-page summary of which was obtained by Reuters, says the benefits of determined worldwide steps to tackle climate change would greatly outweigh the costs.
The 700-page report, to be published on Monday, said that no matter what we do now the chance "is already almost out of reach" to keep greenhouse gases at a level which scientists say should avoid the worst effects of climate change.

Hmmm. W has always said that cost-effectiveness should be considered in Federal decisions. No one has ever come up with any cost-effective benefit to the US that will be seen from invading Iraq. Yet, on the other hand, the benefit to the US in fighting Global Warming would be cost-effective.

Consider: if rising ocean waters do occur, major cities like New York, Miami, New Orleans, Washington and Boston could closely resemble Atlantis if we continue the Bushite policies.

"The evidence gathered by the review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs,"

The report estimates stabilising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cost about 1 percent of annual global output by 2050. But if the world does nothing, it could cut global consumption per person by between five and 20 percent.
Stern called for a coordinated international approach to combat climate change, saying the effort must be shared fairly by rich and poor. He suggested rich nations take responsibility for emissions cuts of 60-80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050.
Countering global warming would bring new opportunities to industry, he said, estimating the market for low-carbon energy products could be worth at least $500 billion a year by 2050.

In 2000, I pointed out that the US had a choice: be the leader in clean energy technology, boosting our corporations' profits, or we could be the followers, letting other nations reap the results. Now, the leading green technology corporations are mostly European, perhaps forever closing the door of opportunity to American businesses. Instead of reaping the financial windfall, we may substitute sending our money to the House of Saud to green technology companies like Denmark's Vestas.

In business schools like W attended, that is referred to as opportunity cost.

The opportunity cost in spending hundreds of billions of dollars on invading Iraq is that those hundreds of billions could not be spent on stopping a real threat to America.

Source: Reuters