>>9552513It isn't really about that.
>How do you know the cost of adapting to global warming won't be cheaper than the cost of trying to prevent it?You could be right. The problem is that right now too many countries are doing NOTHING.
Reversing what we have caused in the near (hundred years) future may not be possible but there is no harm in reducing emissions because if we are going to accept we are causing it then we should at least try to be in control of it.
The problem is that a large portion of our world population is near shorelines. It was convenient for us to build cities there. Rising sea levels could definitely bring infrastructure and property issues in the coming decades. We need to start dealing with this as soon as possible but many countries are dragging their feet on even accepting global warming.
Current prime farmland could become desert, California is still in a massive drought if I am remembering right. For a lot of farmers their farms are their livelihood. They can't up and move unless they can sell their farm but they won't be able to sell it if you can't farm there anymore. Maybe there needs to be policy made so that the government can take these farmers and move them over there.
There's mitigation we could be looking at now, that would be good to do even if the worst case scenarios don't happen but instead they're doing basically nothing. Wasting time on things like fucking carbon credits.
Whose fucking idea was carbon credits anyway? It's just shifting money around and paying to pollute. I seem to recall in the greatest irony the carbon credits got so cheap that it was cheaper to buy them than it was to implement carbon reducing measures.
