Adapting to +8C will be a lot more expensive than reducing moderately to hit +4C and adapting to that.
And the only way to limit to +4C IMO is to try and limit to +2C and inevitably missing.
And the only way to limit to +4C IMO is to try and limit to +2C and inevitably missing.
“Only” +4 is already going to be a very, very rough situation rife with positive feedback loops that may well make +5, then +6, etc inevitable.
Compounding interest and economic growth has been the primary driving force for lifting people out of poverty, and increased wealth can be used to build seawalls, sequester carbon, and implement climate control on a large scale.
There is still plenty of debate to be had about whether the economic growth from acclimation outweighs the potential climate benefits from mitigation.
> and increased wealth can be used to build seawalls, sequester carbon, and implement climate control on a large scale.
This is fantasy. The elites having captured that much wealth will never give it up for free. Populations will have to take it from their dead hands, which is very costly.
Rest assured: if the status quo is not moved, there will be violent uprising from people feeling the heat (figuratively: it will be water wars and famines). The economies will tank then, with or without mitigation in place.