If I have suggested somewhere that climate change is not real, could you please provide a link so I can clarify? Greater consequences would justify greater spending. I think the IPCC estimated that mitigation would cost a few percent of world GDP. So by 2100 people would be only several times richer than today, rather than several times richer and a bit more. I think it’s worth doing a cost-benefit analysis, as we should do for any big decision. As long as we are not allowed to count benefits of climate change, it won’t be an accurate accounting. I think the more interesting question (and one less likely to spin out of control) is how (and whether on net) Exxon benefits from war. Exxon had interests in Russia which it is abandoning. Exxon faces some higher costs which it must pass on, reducing demand. Can Exxon just raise prices whenever it wants more money? What stops it from doing so all the time?if you still don't believe in global warming
it’s so cataclysmic that it’d cost too much to address
If I have suggested somewhere that climate change is not real, could you please provide a link so I can clarify?
I'm going to be totally honest, this time the "you" in "if you still don't believe in global warming" was not 100% apostrophe, like I'd used with you recently. It also wasn't 0% apostrophe. I dunno, it's weird. It was like "even YOU, probably", like 40-60, apostrophe-not, respectively. So I feel kinda bad, 'cuz I was wrong yet again, but if the other mark's policy position (above) is still "might best do nothing" or effectively "exclusively free market solutions"? Guess I'll see you two marks-ists tomorrow. This is Mark_251 over and out