I always found the looking at the consequences of action/inaction to be a lot more straightforward. The results of doing nothing and having climate impacted severely seem a lot worse then the economic consequences of doing something and it not having been a big issue.
The crisis that would result from the the Himalayan glaciers that supply lower Asia with water disappearing would be on a scale we have never encountered before. Seriously if the second most populous country in the world couldn't feed and provide fresh water to its people what a FUBAR scenario that would be? Not to mention the inevitable wars that would start from the need to fight over diminishing available resources. We already kill each other over silliness about religion, race and simple greed, but war for basic survival over water and arable land? It's a bloody Road Warrior scenario
On the other hand if we actually committed to cutting down pollution and making preventative measures what do we lose? Money, possibly a stretch of bad economic times. Sure would it suck to not be able to easily sate the need for materialism? Yeah but quite frankly I think striving towards a common goal through hardship would a better society make. To be honest even if there isn't some climate Armageddon around the corner cutting down the amount of **** we put into the air, water, or disperse into the land can't be a bad thing.
Not to mention I'm not to cheered by the fact that the nations most responsible would be the ones with the resources and technology to adapt while those who made the least impact are probably going to be the ones hardest boned.
