Why does this seem to me to be iffy science? Or even that big of a deal?
We could take all the money invested over the next 30 years in combating climate change and save ~90k people in the US, or we could put it into something with real results, such as curing cancer, IMHO.
Life is a risk. I strongly feel opposite to you, that everyone is going to die from a (slim risk of) catastrophic climate change.
Because, as I see it, our efforts at renewable growth will compound over time. It's not like just because the US pulled out of the Paris climate accord that all of a sudden the coal industry will take over US power production. The opposite seems to be happening [1].
The hand-wringing is alarmist, and deliberately so. Mostly because Carbon Dioxide is simply not a pollutant. There, I said what you cannot say here.
(Notice how the "solution" to these "crisis" problems always requires giving governments ever more expansive power and control. This is by far the most likely path to bloody tyrannies that makes those of the 20th century look like a warmup.)
it is definitely a pollutant:"A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollutant
risk for the individual is acceptable, and also preferred as it keeps the group strong in the long run. risks to the whole group should be avoided at all costs
Okay, so I looked around and found this tool [1] for World's Air Pollution: Real-time Air Quality Index.
Seems to me that the US is not the biggest offender here, and that maybe the original posted study is using data that could be construed to look bad. Its like they are taking the few bad locations with air pollution and saying the US is screwed.
But broaden the view to include the world, and it seems like the US is the best place to live. Almost as if the US could be the poster child for the Paris climate accord.
