The costs of denying climate change exceed the costs of false alarm.

Evidence

The consequences of these two types of false beliefs are asymmetric but opposite to the ones that Ebell foretells. The initiatives supported by a false positive belief would put a cost on carbon, reduce wasteful practices and the mountains of trash they produce, foster development of green technologies, reduce reliance on fossil fuel energy with renewable sources, promote environmental conservation practices, create efficient mass-transit systems, develop recreational areas, and produce less environmental pollution. Under these conditions, people would live in harmony with their environment. In contrast, the false-negative belief fuels the high-energy diet that results in environmental degradation and the depletion of nonrenewable resources and produces massive amounts of pollution. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2544

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: The asymmetry argument — that even a nonexistent threat justifies the same actions, since the ‘wasteful’ measures are independently beneficial — is a tight, reusable decision-making framework.
• XREF: Mirrors the Pascal’s-wager logic of precautionary principle debates; also resonates with how moral disengagement inverts the cost structure of inaction vs. action.