Comment of the Day: Current Links: "The thing about the Nick Stern climate article...:
...is that it's uselessly pollyana-ish by talking about economic percentages and not food.
Climate-driven disruption gets you, not in the sea level or the air conditioning bill or the change in energy source, but in the farming; either you get hungry or a large hungry group shows up unwilling to starve for your convenience. This is an immediate concern, not a future concern. (That is, there are place in the world where this is already happening.)
We do not have 'this century' to get to zero net carbon; we have a lot less time than that. We might have negative time. We are way, way into existential threat territory on this already.