50 to 1 – Why it is better to adapt than trying to stop Climate Change

Topher has finished his video project 50 to 1:

What if I could show you that it’s 50 times more expensive to try and STOP climate change than it is to ADAPT to climate change? Well I can, in less than 10 minutes, right here in this video. New to the 50 to 1 project? This is the place to start!

What is the TRUE cost of climate change? Is stopping it early really the cheapest plan in the long run? 50 to 1 explores the costs of stopping climate change vs adapting to it as and if it’s required, and uncovers a simple truth; it’s 50 times more expensive to try and STOP climate change than it is to simply ADAPT to it as and if required.

Click here to view the PDF of all 50 to 1 sources and maths.

Here is Topher’s interview of Jo Nova as well…

Topher interviews Joanne Nova, a veteran science communicator and regular commentator on the ABC and many other places. Joanne speaks of her own journey and how she went from being a ‘veteran believer’ in Global Warming to being the high-profile skeptic she is today.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Super_Guest

    Brilliant stuff.

  • I have a question: Where does all this carbon tax money end up? Or where would it have ended up if it had been paid?

    • Muffin

      On welfare payments and other assorted election bribes

    • Polish Pride

      “I have a question: Where does all this carbon tax money end up? Or where would it have ended up if it had been paid?”

      See now this is in my view the best and the key question to be asking. I have asked it many times and in many forums and have never been able to get a straight answer on it. The best I got was someone telling me they got about 6K per annum for some forestry they owned. That’s fine but given the billion dollar sums that make up the total of payments under things such as the Kyoto Protocol there should be the ability to account for every single dollar. Where it goes to and exactly what was done with it. Then exactly how much emissions were reduced as a result.
      Without this information we shouldn’t be paying a single cent and should instead look to other alternatives such as NFP reforestation programmes around the world.
      At least then we can measure the CO2 reduced by every dollar spent.

      • cows4me

        Polish, Polish, Polish you poor naïve thing, you. Did you really believe all this lovely money was going to fight AGW and it was AGW that was the issue, not the Johnny come lately climate change. The bastards have and still are fleecing us Polish. The whole saving the world bullshit has collapsed like a house of cards, carbon was suppose to be valued at $25 a tonne it’s a dollar something now, the whole thing is a fucking scam. AGW was used by cash strapped governments to keep the wolf from the door, nothing more. The bastards should be run out of town.

    • slade52

      I imagine Al Gore got a fair chunk of it

  • BigDes

    That’s great, whatever argument was left is now busted.

  • Polish Pride

    Lets say for the non believers and the sitting on the fencers that for the purpose of this exercise two things are true:
    1. Climate change exists and it could be catastrophic
    2. We want to do something about it.

    All it really does is show that the current System is inadequate to deal with something of such a huge magnitude. Why? Because it comes down to cost.
    The cost is excessive. This point is made very well in the videos above. Ergo money becomes a barrier to actually doing something about a catastrophic problem.
    In fact we could make the shift if really required. We have the resources to build hydro, we can churn out incredibly efficient solar. We have the technology to make many of the changes we would need to. The problem or barrier is the cost of doing so.
    If we were to switch to a different system where money was no longer an issue, the barrier is removed
    The resources are available.
    The knowledge is there
    We could then make the changes.
    Right now, even if their was 100% consensus on Climate Change; Under the current system the impact on economies and the cost of doing so for both business and Countries makes it impossible to make any change at the rate required.
    Under a different system (RBE) this would not be a problem.
    Remove the cost and you remove the barrier.

  • Day Day

    AGW is a lovely theory, until you look at the numbers. In terms on scientific quantitative & economic analysis the theory doesn’t stack up. Most believers are no good at mathematics.

  • thor42

    This all *assumes* that “climate change” is happening in the first place.
    I’m not convinced.

  • Steve (North Shore)

    This planet Earth will do exactly what it wants to do as it has done before.
    There is nothing that humans can do that will stop warming/cooling. This planet Earth will survive the fucking raving lunatic nutbars. Problem is the nutbars want a free ride on the back of the producers

  • brian

    unfortunately to many green fucktards about