Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
#3 and #4 are entirely unrelated.
There will be more loss due to storms in the future because there will be much more stuff as all nations increase in wealth and population continues to grow.
Spending $400T will not prevent the $600T loss because a. storms exist regardless of climate change, and b. global climate is very slow to respond to human activity
People aren't going to be cool spending $1T per year to turn the outdoor thermostat down when some people don't have medical healthcare, or drug addicts are defiling cities. Outdoor thermostat is something you think about after all the other problems people face have been solved.
|
1) $ 600-trillion with no action.
2) Scientists say 350ppm is the target.
3) 350ppm costs $ 400-trillion.
4) You don't have a habitable planet if you don't spend the $.
5) Earth's geologic record indicates for 'abrupt' climate change.
6) It appears that you don't comprehend 'non-linearity.'
7) It appears that you don't comprehend positive, self-reinforcing feedback loops.
8) I believe that is was the Younger Dryas which demonstrated that the climate can make rapid swings on a 13-year time-scale.