Here's a question that keeps policymakers up at night: if you had one dollar to spend, would you put it toward vaccines or carbon reduction?

Seems straightforward until you realize what you're really asking. It's not just about public health versus climate action. According to Lindsay Iversen's analysis, the real tension lies in how we value lives across time.

Save someone today through vaccination? The impact is immediate, measurable, concrete. Invest in cutting emissions? You're betting on preventing harm decades down the line—harm we can model but can't yet see.

This isn't some abstract philosophical puzzle. Every budget allocation, every policy priority, every funding decision reflects an implicit answer to this question. Do we discount future lives at 3%? 7%? Not at all?

The math changes everything. A high discount rate means tomorrow's lives matter far less than today's, which tilts resources toward immediate interventions. A low rate—or none—flips the equation entirely, making long-term climate action the rational choice.

What's your answer? Because whether you realize it or not, society's already making that call.