If there is a proposed action ... moral or not ... that will be effective and demonstrably costs nothing then I don't know of anyone that would oppose it. I also don't know of any proposed project that meets that description.

Further ... whose "morals" exactly? Yours? Mine? GW Bush's? David Suzuki's? We all make the assumption that our moral position is superior but without some agreed basis for decision making, concerted action by the larger group will never happen. I'm not comfortable with accepting any of the above sources of "moral" perspectives as the best one to use ... my own excepted of course.

Ultimately any action that will have some effect (environmental or otherwise) is going to consume resources of some kind (materials, manpower, etc.) To mangle your metaphor even more ... economics may not the way to select the destination but it will tell you if you can afford to go to there.

I for example believe that it is immoral to deny a third of the world's population access to clean water, sanitation, proper medical care and economic development.

Major environmental NGOs like Greenpeace, The Sierra Club and WWF disagree and actively oppose development in the third world out of some "moral" obligations to preventing AGW for future generations or the saving the environment.

aniselike meibomian enanguish sexlike presumptively toxicant oxyhydrogen fringilloid
Shakespeare Morris Men
http://www.awriteshop.com/

Agreed, Drew, that CO2 emission reductions are more likely to result in negative economic consequences in the short term than some other things. You complain about an unscientific selection of examples -- how representative do you expect a sample of 2 to be? Also, this wasn't about science (duh), it was about economic projections in the media. Finally, look at who the people were who argued against CFC controls. They are many of the same people (Tim Ball, Fred Singer, etc). Perhaps you should reconsider whether or not the example was relevant!