Well, right - the costs and benefits are almost impossible to ascertain with any degree of confidence. "Epic collapse to not that big a deal, or maybe somewhere in between." The costs could be "not that much or maybe shut down the economy." It's not a great place to due much analysis.
To keep it simpler - we are certain that we are raising the proportion of carbon in the atmosphere (and the oceans). It seems very likely that this proportion will continue to rise given current policies. Now, I suppose reasonable minds can differ, but in my opinion larges changes to the composition of the atmosphere are bad and should be minimized to what extent we can, given how reliant we are on the atmosphere and the uncertainty of outcomes in changing it.
So
in your opinion, large changes to the composition of the atmosphere is a de facto bad thing.
So you didn't show your work. You pulled it out of
your opinion hole.
What if rising temperatures actually improve agriculture, and that we can easily mitigate them for humans with, ya know, air conditioning?
You'll need China/India/Russia for starters to show theirs also for an accurate account.Is that even possible? Screw Bernie build the bad boys and check for faults first
Wrong and distracting. The worldwide effects of climate change occur regardless of where the CO2 is generated. As such, if we're talking about the actual PROBLEM (and if it is, in fact, a problem), that can be defined without addressing the solution.
If climate change isn't actually a PROBLEM, then no country needs to spend money to try to solve it. If it *IS* a problem, then, well, we get to your point.
I'm saying if you're looking at a cost benefit analysis, and you actually don't know / can't quantify what the benefit is, you can't even get to dealing with China/India/Russia.
The assumption is that climate change is bad, and that we should stop it. I'm saying that's unproven. What's proven is that man is increasing temperature. Whether that's a problem, or neutral, or even potentially beneficial, is very much an unknown.
It is precisely on point. There is no other benefit to be had. Temperature rise is THE problem here, the genesis of every other issue, and one can calculate how much your spending will ameliorate it.
And obviously the nuclear issue is far from easy to solve.
Also wrong. Temperature rise is the EFFECT of increasing CO2 emissions.
It relies on incredibly complex modeling, of the environmental effects, the economic effects, and the geopolitical effects of that warming to determine if it's a PROBLEM.
So if you want cost/benefit, you can't just say that it'll reduce temperatures. You have to model those things to know how much it's actually WORTH IT to spend money to reduce temperatures.