Climate Panic Mongers may scream “the sky is falling”, but it isn’t. They want to justify taking drastic punitive actions now to prevent uncertain hazards of questionable magnitude that may ensue many years in the future. Much of the harm from climate is really due to poor management of risk exposures. Build houses on hurricane prone coasts or in the middle of a flood plain, or right next to combustible forests and they will get destroyed by flood or fire. We don’t need to make bad deals like the Paris Climate accords to preserve wetlands or stop building homes in wildfire zones. We don’t need to stop flying in planes or driving in cars to build structures on stilts back from the coast.
We do need to think through the economics. If we act in panic, we will not consider that the measures demanded will cost a trillion now for the benefit of a 50% chance of preventing losses of half a trillion 50 years from now. After discounting for the uncertainty of the benefits and the time value of money, which of the GND measures make any sense?
Instead of running in panic, we should adopt policies that promote minimally-disruptive adaptation to climate change as it becomes manifest. We can also adopt some CO2 emissions reduction, absorption, and storage measures such as planting more CO2 hungry crops, that make sense from a cost-benefit perspective.
You may attack the prudence of moderates, but we know they are unlikely to tell us to jump off a cliff.