A choice to spend money on X is a choice to not spend money on Y, Z and many other activities.
Politicians often present government spending programs as a choice to fund “worthy cause” X, or to not fund worthy cause X. But in reality, a choice to fund X is a choice not to fund something else, a point which is almost always ignored.
When we make personal spending decisions, we are making those choices – if we choose to buy a new car, we are probably choosing not to take expensive vacation trips.
There are proposals that would spend tens of trillions of U.S. $s (equivalent) to change the climate trajectory. What do we choose not to fund in order to make these expenditures?
- Education?
- Public health?
- Parks?
- Public safety including police, fire and EMS?
- Health care?
- Military?
- Aid to those living in poverty?
- Increase taxes so you have less to spend on food, personal choice activities, your own health, children’s clothing?
No one is asking what we should stop spending money on – in order to spend trillions on modifying the climate (if it even works)? Politicians and activists demand we spend enormous sums – or demand we immediately shut down massive infrastructure and replace it with something else, which costs more.
But none have proposed what we should stop spending money on – or that we should double or triple income and sales taxes?
Spending is about making a choice between X and Y (and or Z…) because resources are not infinite.
What should we choose not to fund in order to fund trillions in climate initiatives?
We need to be spending trillions per year on clean energy – where will that money come from?
