There are continually these numbers thrown out by the likes of the HF saying addressing climate change will cost this much in money and jobs. I have thought at least for the American audience there should be more converse noting of the monetary cost of NOT addressing climate change. Citing the problems with the info like from the HF and describing the scientific picture with rising sea level and more 90+F days seems good, but especially as the growing debt has become a hot topic lately I have thought also turning around and reporting projected costs because of climate change would be better.

Something sharp and succinct like that in 2060, 2100, whatever, if we continue BAU the average American family figures to be X% poorer than if we move to stabilize at 450ppm. I think something simple like that may resonate more and more widely in the US than even things like talking about permanent Dust Bowl, ending of CA central valley agriculture, more heat-related deaths, etc.

But I wonder… Are there just not any good references that can say something like that? How much work has there been done in that regard? Are the harsher economic impacts too far down the road to really register? Are there too many factors and too much uncertainty to make a decent analy-guess? Does it more come down to losing not just money but the way of life with disappearing species, agriculture, etc.?