> The humanitarian cost of losing various sources of cheap energy very likely exceeds the humanitarian benefit of slightly reducing expected global temperature.

> The humanitarian cost of losing various sources of cheap energy very likely exceeds the humanitarian benefit of slightly reducing expected global temperature. I'm totally cool giving a pass to areas with severe humanitarian problems that don't have the means to fight them. I care about America and other big consumers getting their act together. And GDP is an interesting measure of stuff, but it is a really poor reflection of standard of living which I value a lot more than GDP measures or the stock market. In fact, losing or gaining a few points of global GDP isn't going to have any meaningful impact on folks living through humanitarian crises.