Economic estimates that assign value to the long-term benefits that would come from reducing warming — things like fewer deaths from heat and less flooding — show that every dollar invested in quickly making low-carbon energy cheaper can do $16 worth of good.
Sorry, I call BS on this claim. Big time. These “studies” probably assign blame for every flood, heat wave, or general weather anomaly to global warming.
Economic estimates that assign value to the long-term benefits that would come from reducing warming — things like fewer deaths from heat and less flooding — show that every dollar invested in quickly making low-carbon energy cheaper can do $16 worth of good.
For long term differences in climate, there are more
cold-related deaths than heat-related deaths anyway. Some would disagree, pointing out the heat wave deaths of recent years in France and even in Chicago. These, though, are acute heat episodes, not a degree or two increase in average global warmth. And the deaths in them would have been preventable if (in the U.S.) people had made use of available public cooling facilities. Of course, under Obama's proposed cap and trade scheme, we're facing a much greater likelihood of increased weather-related deaths due to both heat and cold because of too expensive natural gas and electricity.