Basically he says Carbon is contributing to GHG and climate change but claims that managing a 1.5C is more expensive than “going green”.
That is it would be long term cheaper to adapt to climate change than to reverse it (with the proviso that we tax the externalities of carbon.)
It’s an interesting proposition and perhaps it does have economic merit. Of course many people will dismiss it out of hand because it questions our present assumptions.
That is it would be long term cheaper to adapt to climate change than to reverse it (with the proviso that we tax the externalities of carbon.)
It’s an interesting proposition and perhaps it does have economic merit. Of course many people will dismiss it out of hand because it questions our present assumptions.