The central calculation in the Stern Review – also in Nordhaus etc – is that climate change imposes costs. So does avoiding climate change impose costs. So, how much cost avoiding should we bear in order to avoid the costs of?
This is a very simple economic idea. The details are of course monstrous, but the logical answer is that we should not bear more costs to avoid than the costs we are avoiding by doing so.
This means that if the costs of avoiding climate change are higher then we should do less avoiding of climate change.
This is entirely standard and simple economics of climate change.
Of course, that means that the task may simply be bigger than we have thought. What this alternative message implies is that we must reallocate capital from those unable to adapt to those willing to innovate to find the solutions that we need.
No, the answer is that if this is true, the task is larger, then we should be doing less of it.