> They are already taking into account the benefits.
Really? Are you sure? What people?
I'd love to read the papers (probably in economics journals, I assume) that did this analysis, as such an analysis would surely be well worth my time to read. The few economists I'm aware of discussing this, caution that it is not worth the money that GW advocates are proposing pouring down this rat hole. Do you have any papers that you can point me to?
I'm sure if you look at the thousands of references in the IPCC Working Group II report on impacts and vulnerability you'll find plenty. Or did you already look there?
Really? Are you sure? What people?
I'd love to read the papers (probably in economics journals, I assume) that did this analysis, as such an analysis would surely be well worth my time to read. The few economists I'm aware of discussing this, caution that it is not worth the money that GW advocates are proposing pouring down this rat hole. Do you have any papers that you can point me to?