Hi.  Try to see this article: http://e360.yale.edu/features/calculating_the_true_cost_of_global_climate_change

Sorry, Kenneth, but I beg to differ.

True, mitigating climate change has a cost. Does it mean that we should do nothing about it, keep on burning fossil fuels and releasing  enormous quantities of GES simply because alternatives are costly? I definitely cannot concur with such a short-sighted view.

So yes, I think there is a lot of value attempting cost/benefit analysis on climate change. The point is however that it might be next to impossible to do if all the impacts, possible solutions and time horizons are considered at the same time, simply because the adequate databases probably do not exist. I trust nevertheless that specific studies are not only possible, but worthwhile.

In these days of general climatoskepticism in the highest spheres of the current US administration, I think it's important for everyone who looks at the plain facts (March 2017 has again broken a temperature record here in France since the inception of the Met recordings, and we get that kind of news every year and almost every month for several years now) to decide in conscience whether to keep an active or passive attitude towards global warming and climate change. The benefits will be maybe for our children aor grandchildren - but they're definitely worth the effort.

Hi Kenneth

Before thinking of lowering GES levels, let's start by not raising them in the first place!

I think that's also part of the cost/benefit and mitigation equations, right?

True, this is also costly, but should we spare the type of investments that will make large parts of our planet still able to support human (and other forms of) life in a century from now? I think not.

Kenneth,

Thanks for your comment.

I'm no climate expert, but I again beg to differ from the views you express.

1- You may think nothing has changed in response to raisng CO2 levels and temperatures, but I don't concur. Ask the climate refugees from Oceania, SE Asia or Africa if they see a difference; look at the global faunal migrations northwards in our hemisphere; look at the shrinking ice cap on both poles... Those are direct and visible consequences of climate change

2- I don't agree with  your statement that 'There is no place on the planet where this has created any damage that was not simply weather-related. Weather is local and short term, climate is regional/global and long term. The current modifications and their trends are certainly not weather, but climate changes, and they are certainly due , for a marge part, to human activities.

3- I also do not concur with your statement that the consquences are now minor, and that we can thus safely go on with our current emissions. In all the climate scenarios, the start of the temperature curves has a small slope, but all predict a sharp inflexion of this slope as of 2030 ( that is , tomorrow) ou 2040 depending on the GES emissions. None of these models predict linear changes.

4- To quote George Box, 'All models are wrong, but some are useful'. What is the evidence that the climate models are incorrect? So far, they seem rather accurate, from what I know of them.

5- You say that the technologies to store C are not there yet. Thats partly wrong. For instance, have a look at the 4p1000 initiatlve, launched during the COP21 in paris, and which states that increasing C storage in soils by 0.4% a year would suffice to compensate our C02 emissions.  see

http://4p1000.org/understand

for more info and data on this.

So I definitely think we SHOULD care and do something about emissions, and that it does not need to be costly to work.

Like Mark Twain said, 'predictions are difficult, especially about the future'.

Nevertheless, the trends are there: have a look at the country data in this site, which are based on long term records by the national met services ( not really suspect of data manipulation, I think). You'll see that Europe is a prime place to observe climate change... and hence to be concerned about carbon emissions...

http://www.climatechangepost.com/

They also record impacts on several important features or activities, such as agriculture, extreme events ( flash foods, etc...), forest fires, etc... Quite telling in my opinion, but maybe not in yours.

And I'll stop it here, because I guess the only point on which we can agree on this topic, is to disagree!