There’s no reason we can’t do both. Claiming money spent on researching/development of XYZ should take a backseat to some other problem is extremely short sighted.
For example, sattelites not only help us understand climate change, but are actively used to track down methane leaks, CFC leaks and other issues. We can track forest fires by sattelite as well, and fight them more effectively.
The only points where it really makes sense to say “why are we funding X when we should be focussing on Y”, is when X is actively detrimental for no real gain. For example, fossil fuel subsidies, meat subsidies, schemes that protect local products to the detriment of other (shipping Dutch pigs to Italy to produce “Parma” ham).
There’s no reason we can’t do both. Claiming money spent on researching/development of XYZ should take a backseat to some other problem is extremely short sighted.
For example, sattelites not only help us understand climate change, but are actively used to track down methane leaks, CFC leaks and other issues. We can track forest fires by sattelite as well, and fight them more effectively.
The only points where it really makes sense to say “why are we funding X when we should be focussing on Y”, is when X is actively detrimental for no real gain. For example, fossil fuel subsidies, meat subsidies, schemes that protect local products to the detriment of other (shipping Dutch pigs to Italy to produce “Parma” ham).