Abstract: By examining the problem of climate change this paper develops a substantial critique of the background assumptions that not only the formulation of economic theories but, in parts, also that of sociological/ political theories base on. However, this approach does not “supplement” to efficiency considerations” which up to now dominate the practical debate; it rather supersedes them. It will be demonstrated that the supposed rationality behind the cost-benefit analysis used by economists in order to more or less calculate mathematically the ideal climate policy is only vaguely visible and often not honored as both incorrect and incomplete normative and descriptive assumptions are incorporated into the calculation of what is supposed to be “efficient” climate policy. Accordingly, keywords are: predated and too optimistic climate data; problematic use of prognosis uncertainty; missing injury factors of global warming such as wars over resources; the limits of growth are not taken into account; improper quantification of what cannot be quantified; incorrect discounting of future events; ethical and democratic deficiencies of “preference theory”.