That analogy is too generic - it will apply to any action which has two distinct kinds of benefits. Pascal's wager has many issues which wont apply here. A:'This approach to programming improves memory safety', B:'Not interested', A:'It also makes code more modular/reusable', B:'Pascal's Wager!'

Also, if one is doing a cost benefit analysis - one has to include things like political instability caused by oil dependence(see Middle East politics), funding of extremist groups, and health benefits due to reduction of air pollution.

Sadly I think you're underestimating the appeal of religion. If this idea were as popular as religious ideas we'd have gone green a generation ago.

Religious ideas are only popular when you don't have to put much effort and only pay a token sum of money.

Once religion demands dedication most people will find paradigm where they skip working while still consider themself pious.

Well it's only a "religious argument" if you also assume that the fossil fuels our economy currently relies upon are somehow never going to run out. Renewable energy is the only long term solution to a number of energy problems, the climate change issue just makes the need for it that much more important.

It sounds like Pascal's wager: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

It is not a good sign if your worldview rests on reasoning like this...

The reason Pascal's wager is bullshit is that it rests on two assumptions to convince non-believers:

1. Infinite badness of hell;

2. Infinitesimal possibility of religious truth.

Reasoning about climate change doesn't really involve multiplying infinity by zero. There is more evidence to back up a non-zero chance of catastrophe, and we don't have to rely on inifinite badness to make action worthwhile. Finite badness does the trick just fine.

Unlike Pascal's wager, the question of climate change action is rooted in knowable quantities. Unfortunately, a lot of these are still unknowns to a degree, and a lot of misinformation exists, making it difficult for non-experts to keep up.

Assuming that ice core data is being interpreted correctly, there is an almost guaranteed chance of catastrophic climate change sometime in the "near" future regardless of human impact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

EDIT:

Looking at that a bit closer, I get peak temperatures at ~ 412.5k, 322.5k, 237.5k, 127.5k, and 7.5k years ago.

The other problem with Pascal's wager is widespread disagreement about what you really have to do to satisfy the alleged deity. Many religions claim that if you aren't a member of that particular religion, then you go to hell. Well, with all the different religions, that makes it pretty hard to choose the "correct" one, doesn't it? And if you're looking at the ways you have to limit your life and actions (e.g. not having premarital sex) to please this god, again, the different religions disagree hugely. Some religions say it's sinful to drink alcohol, others don't have this problem. Some say you can't eat pork or shellfish, again others disagree. Some religions say that you need to be completely celibate (I think the Shakers were like this), and not have any kids. So your odds of both choosing the "correct" religion and following its precepts acceptably are vanishingly small.

> "What if we do the good things that some religious book says we should do, avoid the bad, be decent human beings, and help others, and there's no afterlife to be rewarded by?"

> It is not a good sign if your worldview rests on reasoning like this...

Are you saying that it's not a good thing to have lived a good life and done good by your fellow humans?

Hmm, I'm having trouble figuring out your argument here. I see three premises:

Premise A: Pascal's wager is based on sound reasoning.

Premise B: People who live by pascals wager "live a good life", etc.

Premise C: "Living a good life" is a desirable thing.

Somehow you are arguing that if I reject premise A I must also reject premise C (if I were to act rationally), but I don't follow it.

>This sounds just like a religious argument. "What if we do the good things that some religious book says we should do, avoid the bad, be decent human beings, and help others, and there's no afterlife to be rewarded by?"

The problem is that the religious books want you to do a bunch of things that really are bad and awful. Aside from the bits about murdering unbelievers and apostates, and stoning your disobedient children, and not eating pork (which is actually good for the pigs I guess if you follow it), they'd also have you do things like forgo all contraception, leaving you with a bunch of children you're not prepared to take care of, or being celibate, which really isn't fun or healthy, and basically living like they did in Victorian times (see the other article here today about the "scandalous" behavior at Victorian beaches with some men and women actually swimming together--the horror!). If there isn't a really good reason to enjoy various human activities that really aren't harmful, then why shouldn't you?