Ok, this is so bogus. How in the world can they come up with these numbers when they don’t even know what technologies are going to be the most effective? What happens if the money is invested in technologoies and projects that aren’t efficient? Do their numbers still hold credence? It sounds to me like some people are scared because the recession, lower oil prices, and some of the the coldest recorded temperatures in certain areas in decades have caused a reduction in the amount being funneled to research climate change. So, they use a marketing tactic by making this bold, sweeping statement saying we have this small window of opportunity in hopes of securing more investment dollars for their research.

Believe me, I favor finding ways to decrease our use of carbon-based fuel. I believe there are health risks and possible climate changing repercussions if we don’t. But I don’t believe these numbers have any credibility other than in the “it makes sense that the more we spend and the quicker we spend it, the greater chance for success we have” sort of way. There are just too many variables.