But that goes both ways?
If I told you “my model predicts a 50% chance you be diagnosed with cancer and a 50% chance you wont” how do you make a decision. When both are equally probable?
If I told you “my model predicts a 50% chance you be diagnosed with cancer and a 50% chance you wont” how do you make a decision. When both are equally probable?
If a number of people told me that there was a 50% chance I had cancer, then I would first check their qualifications to make sure their predictions were worth my time. Then, if I found them credible, I would be really worried about getting cancer and go through all the screenings and tests necessary to figure out which side of the 50% I was on. Would you not do the same?
Smoking is not needed for life to function, energy production, food production, heating, etc is very much needed for life to function.
It didn't have to go down this way but certain powerful folks have been more interested in maintaining the status quo than making improvements, and that pattern continues today. Even basic economic concepts like externalities are ignored because folks embrace thought-terminating terms like "job-killing policies".
Isn't that a bit hyperbolic?
"Extreme" economic harm? Define extreme, please. Also account for all the increased economic activity related to climate change mitigation (renewable energy, carbon capture, construction).
"lower living standards SUBSTANTIALLY" - Climate change will do that too. Try cooling your house cheaply, or getting enough freshwater or fresh produce when the climate goes haywire.
"be very regressive to the poorest people." - Again, needs context. The "poorest people" are precisely the ones who will suffer the most if climate change isn't averted. The Indian subcontinent, to take one example, will have acute water shortages and/or sea-level rises (in Bangladesh) which will lead to crop failures and famine.