Either the guy who wrote it didn't pass middle-school science or he's intentionally misrepresenting the information.
There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.
Propping up AIG, facilitating a deal for Bear Stearns, pouring money into TARP - was this all money well spent? With Bear and AIG, all we heard about was the need to protect counterparties to trade positions and how a downward spiral would begin if the government didn't step in. It turned out that many counterparties to AIG positions were Goldman Sachs and other large financial institutions. That's what happens when you have an integrated financial market - risk is shared among all parties. Did anyone learn anything from the financial crash? Not in my opinion - the government still hasn't ratcheted back Fannie, Freddie, or Sally's leverage. The Fed is still keeping the overnight rate at a minimum level.
The environment is the same deal. Bjorn Lomborg has written a number of books on environmentalism and the cost/benefit of actions. This book: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Solutions-Worlds-Biggest-Problems-Benefits/dp/0521715970/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270753286&sr=1-3"]Amazon.com: Solutions for the World's Biggest Problems: Costs and Benefits (9780521715973): Bjorn Lomborg: Books[/ame] is interesting because he takes a look at what he considers the biggest problems we face, and performs cost/benefit analysis on each of them. You can disagree with his conclusions, but at least he is thinking about global problems in a way that most people (governments at least) don't.