But if fewer people are dying, then why spend trillions on climate change and cause millions to die from energy poverty. My daugher moved from Phoenix to Minnesota for school... now that is climate change... and the quality of life in both places was excellent.

Meanwhile, half the world is experiencing a decline in population as fertility rates fall below 2.1. The biggest culprit according to these studes is urbanization, which is expected to continue. Japan is the future, now. It's population is not only aging but declining by 1/2% per year nationwide and the only area growing (you guessed it), urban Tokyo.

If you look at the various scenarios run by climate scientists they predict with current technology and current population growth rates, that it will take between 300-400 years before adaptation is not the preferred response to climate change. But technology is not stagnant and current population growth rates are not only declining but turning negative in most of the world and that negative rate is accelerating.

But technology is not static. When you combine declining global populations with the natural transition to cheaper energy as technology improves and fossil fuel becomes more expensive to find and extract, it suggests that forcing populations to convert to green energy will cause greater harm than allowing things to happen when it makes sense economically both in terms of cost and human life.

The more scientific less politically motivated sensational literature makes clear adaptation makes far more sense than remediation in light of the outcomes both will produce. When overlayed with population forecasts, there is no rational argument for remediation.

As I said, if climate change is so severe that adaptation won't work and populations won't shrink fast enough. Then what should we be doing... you are right... building new safer smaller nuclear plants as fast as we can... but do you see that happening? Until you see nuclear plants popping up like mushrooms, it means the current global warming crisis is just the most recent "sky is falling" reincarnation.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-next-nuclear-plants-will-be-small-svelte-and-safer/

My point was simple, several studies have argued climate change has not been bad for man up to now and in fact more people die of cold than heat.

Climate change is happening unevenly, so most of global warming is occurring in the colder parts of the planet and thus those areas are becoming less cold. That means growing seasons are longer and crop yields are better.

In addition, several studies suggest that CO2 is not the primary culprit behind global warming trends, but rather global land use practices are responsible for most of the recent global warming.

When I start seeing global warming approached as a scientific issues to be addressed instead of as a political issue, then I will begin to see it as a problem... but for now, the emphasis seems primarily on governments being granted greater power to manage their economies. Not a very persuasive argument.

As an aside, I am not anti green energy. I power my home and two EVs with 32 solar panels on my roof. So don't confuse my writing with not believing that as technology evolves that people will naturally gravitate to renewable energy, but rather that climate change is not the bogeyman politicians make it out to be especially given the solutions they are proposing...