The point of the article though is "At what cost?" Toi spend so much money trying to change the climate may be more hurtful than setting aside that money to compensate for the change in climate. Remediation of damage, building of nuclear power plants, etc. Also, what isn't mentioned in the article is that money spent on either reducing carbon or remediation won;t be spent for other things, like feeding people, research to reduce diseases, housing the homeless, etc. These too should have been included in the article. It would have made an even stronger case for not spending money on carbon reduction.