The maddening answer is yes, it would cost an incredible amount of effort and money to invest in this issue. This video makes an economic analysis of the most serious problems of humanity.
Surprisingly, global warming would be the most inefficient way of doing good to the world. I appreciate the economic focus of this speech, but I also hold a strong clash with his arguments.
Is it impossible to solve all the problems at the same time? It seems that our capability to change the world is limited by the amount of money available. From my point of view, and in contradiction with the best economists in the world, reducing emissions should be among the first things to take into account. I’m not talking about spending correctly, but making profit out of it.
Saving energy of all kinds by promoting efficiency at home, car, industry and many other polluters’ consumption, would involve a huge amount of savings, that could be spent in such other critical problems mentioned in the video.
All in all, kyoto protocol talks about a change in our conception of our surroundings. Mankind must take care of itself, and what a better thing to do it than facing HIV, malaria and so on, with all the resources available. Kyoto protocol should be seen as a tool to stop global warming, but also as a way of avoiding wasting resources, in order to make other things that are really worth the effort.