Nothing is going to change, get used to it.

[Person Man]

Why do people always focus on how many people it will put out of work and how expensive it will be when we can just as easily focus on how many more technicians, laborers, designers and researchers we will need to hire. Maybe the economy needs some sort of massive Keynesian jolt that it used to get through the mass mobilization caused by war. I mean, even if there was no Global Warming and even if we could believe every word of what those rich smelly guys in cowboy hats and Carnharts say about what they do to the world, it is still a great idea to think infrastructure.

[Person Man]

Why do people always focus on how many people it will put out of work and how expensive it will be when we can just as easily focus on how many more technicians, laborers, designers and researchers we will need to hire. Maybe the economy needs some sort of massive Keynesian jolt that it used to get through the mass mobilization caused by war. I mean, even if there was no Global Warming and even if we could believe every word of what those rich smelly guys in cowboy hats and Carnharts say about what they do to the world, it is still a great idea to think infrastructure.

     If the costs make the project in question impossible, then I think they need to be addressed. Ponying up three times the GDP of the entire world would probably take more than a few bake sales, after all.

Then again, why do we focus on just the costs as if no benefits would come before the entire cost is paid. Perhaps an actuarial assesment needs to be made based on the risks, costs and benefits instead of just throwing out numbers and saying "its impossible" or "its too hard". Maybe it is and there is a reasonable estimation that we can make to make it reasonably certain that there is nothing we can do about greenhouse gases but it would appear that simply dismissing any analysis based on what we can already tell would just be bad policy. ...and of course, if we get to make the decision you are talking about, we are then at the question of what can we still do if suffering significant to radical climate change is unavoidable. Is there a role for the state or is dealing with this situation a personal matter?

[Person Man]

...and how much, right now, is Global Warming being caused by political corruption and an economy based on millions of workers and several states being the clientelle of such corruption. Of course, what I am talking about is subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. How can we fight Global Warming by cancelling these subsidies and either replacing these subsidies with renewable subsidies or giving these subsidies back to the people in the form of progressive tax cuts?

[Person Man]

     Well, developing countries are adding lots of new coal plants, which are adding greatly to the rate of global warming. While political corruption plays a role, there is also the issue that their energy needs are growing rapidly and coal is a cheap way to meet them. I imagine that addressing corruption that leads to subsidizing fossil fuels would probably help, but you also need to help countries like China and India produce energy in a less polluting fashion in order to curb warming in the long run.

Perhaps they could buy our technology or training....they are already buying our military secrets and my roommates at UW are Indian.