https://ir.citi.com/E8+83ZXr1vd/qyim0DizLrUxw2FvuAQ2jOlmkGzr4ffw4YJCK8s0q2W58AkV/ypGoKD74zHfji8=

As an example, To put the numbers in perspective, Basic metal corrosion will cost nearly over 100 trillion dollars by then, using real world figures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrosion#Economic_impact

In 1998, the total annual direct cost of corrosion in the U.S. was ca. $276 billion (ca. 3.2% of the US gross domestic product).

Extrapolating out today's GDP loss of 3.2% to the 70 trillion global GDP per year X 45 years = 100.8 trillion dollars.

This Citi study shows 2 trillion to 44 trillion... meaning metal corrosion(or many other problems) are more important issues by at least 2x to more then 50x.

Climate activists would have to come up with a plan that costs less then 1.5% GDP per year to mitigate the worst case scenario.

From my studies of how much climate policy is expected to cost the world... I can only help but laugh at the Malthusians. Most studies range from negative 3-5% GDP for just the policy cost alone.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/a-cure-worse-than-the-disease-global-economic-impact-of-global-warming-policy

For the scenario in which all Kyoto Annex I countries enact carbon restrictions equivalent to Lieberman–Warner or Waxman–Markey, the projected, inflation-adjusted economic impacts include:

An aggregate net loss worldwide of $395 trillion by 2100 and A single-year net loss worldwide of $13.8 trillion in 2100 (more than 2 percent of world GDP).

Global warming is literally a non issue.... No worse then the economic cost of your lawn tools rusting... zero fucks should be given.