Newspaper, television, and radio ads in B.C. shout about the seriousness of global warming and how we must "do something" about it. What the citizens of B.C. might "do" came out last week in the premier's own Climate Action Team report. The shouting may soon turn to screaming because report concludes the government needs to "educate" British Columbians even more about climate change. However, a more balanced view on global warming suggest it is far from the worst problem facing the world today. If the government needs to bombard us with propaganda to convince us of the righteousness of its global warming crusade, maybe it's because the benefits just can't be justified given the costs.

The Climate Action Team report states that the "benefits of taking action on climate change in our province far outweigh the costs of not acting," but comprehensive analysis shows the costs are higher than the benefits.

Bjorn Lomborg, head of the Copenhagen Consensus and voted by the UK newspaper The Guardian in 2008 to be one of the 50 people who could save the planet, brought together eight of the world's top economists, including five Nobel laureates, to rank the problems humanity faces and which ones, if combated, would create the most good today and in the future.

Not surprisingly, global warming's first appearance on this list comes in at 14th place, well after vitamins for children and international trade reform. That's because combating global warming costs more than the benefits received -- 90 cents of benefit for every dollar spent, according to Mr. Lomborg's report

Giving children vitamins would creates 17 dollars in benefits (in the form of better health, fewer deaths, increased future earnings, etc.) for every dollar spent. Surely creating 17 dollars in benefits for every dollar spent is a much better investment that creating 90 cents in benefits for every dollar spent.

How can such a poor investment be justified One way is to rely on scare-mongering propaganda. The Climate Action Team relied on the 2006 Stern Review for its conclusions.

The same Mr. Lomborg, in a Wall Street Journal article in 2006, harshly criticized the Stern Review. He said "[the Review's] fear mongering arguments have been sensationalized" and its claim that the benefits from action far outweigh the costs of inaction fall apart under a careful analysis.

For example, the Stern Review states the worst effects of global warming can be reduced if global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are stabilized at 550 parts per million (ppm). The Review estimates this will cost one per cent of world GDP, or about $450 billion per year. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that CO2 stabilization would mean an increase in global temperatures of 2.3 degrees 100 years from now. Sounds good until we realize that the IPCC also says that if emissions aren't stabilized, global temperatures might be higher, but then again, they might be lower. In other words, the Stern Review's $450 billion per year spending spree will create little if any benefit 100 years from now.

Does it really matter if the government uses propaganda and faulty analysis on its global warming crusade After all, it's "doing something" about the environment, right But spending billions of dollars to little or nothing 100 years from now is a questionable use of resources.

Surely the B.C. government could do more good today by focusing on problems it could actually do something about, like hospital waiting lists. After all, taxpayers' resources are limited. A more sensible approach would be to rank our problems and fix those we can now, in the most cost-effective way possible.

To have your say go to the Climate Action Team's report