John Vidal's still not got the point

Not that we accept his analysis of the damages of course - a richer world will suffer more damage from any particular event simply because a richer world has more to damage. However, leave that aside and accept that contention, Vidal is still missing the point:

It shows that a future of spiralling human disasters is all but certain. This year’s record-breaking heatwaves, the wildfires hitting the northern hemisphere, and the floods sweeping Australia, Bangladesh, Uganda and elsewhere will almost certainly be attributed to global heating. Astonishingly, it suggests that one in three deaths caused by summer heat over the last 30 years were the direct result of human-caused global heating, implying a death toll of millions – potentially more than Covid and HIV/Aids. Without rapid action to slash carbon emissions – by 50% by 2030 – far worse extreme weather will ensue.

With these new studies, the most important argument of deniers, oil companies and reluctant governments not to act has been removed. With an immediate and growing global energy crisis gathering pace, and extreme weather affecting most people on Earth, governments must surely come together at the next UN climate summit in November to pledge immediate action.

That means the UK government must urgently invest billions of pounds to insulate buildings, oil companies must drop all plans to extract more oil, and renewable energy must be prioritised over all fossil fuel burning.

This is not true. At least, it has not been shown to be true as yet. Even as we accept the claims of damage we still need something else to inform any decision. Which is how much will these changes cost?

For our aim is to maximise human utility over time. Therefore we desire to do those things which have benefits greater than their costs, not to do those things where the costs are greater than the benefits. Pointing just to the benefits doesn’t do it - we need to also know the costs of achieving those benefits. Exactly the thing which isn’t being done here.

Of course, it has been done, in the Stern Review among other places. The result being that no, we shouldn’t in fact do all of these things immediately and at whatever cost. Further, we certainly shouldn’t do them via government planning. But then perhaps that’s why Vidal doesn’t bother to mention those costs. You know, given that the science says they’re greater than the benefits?