Preventing runaway global warming may be twice as expensive as previously thought and Britain will have to incur billions of pounds of additional debt to cover its share of the cost, according to the world’s most influential climate change economist.
That entirely buggers up the whole calculation, doesn\’t it?
Stern said that the damage would be x, the cost of averting the damage would by y and as y was less than x then we should try to avert the damage by paying the costs.
Now y has doubled: meaning that the initial decision to avert, rather than adapt to, is false.
Thus perhaps we should not be trying to avert but should adapt?