Dear Luca, thanks for your thoughtful and well-articulated comment (no surprise here). I think we might disagree less than you think. Indeed I did note in the blog(s) that the uncertainty means that the adverse consequences of climate change might be even worse than the worst forecasts, so the argument that we should take dramatic corrective action to reduce that risk is a very legitimate one. I would just like to have it stated in this terms: there is uncertainty, and since we believe the downside risk is catastrophic we need to buy insurance, and this is what it’s going to cost us. At the moment we claim we are sure there will be an apocalypse, that avoiding it would cost us no change in our lifestyle, and yet we do nothing. More importantly, I agree with you that this is a subset of a much broader issue on the sustainability of our economic and social model, for all the reasons you list above and that we have discussed in the past. But to me that makes it even more important that we start having rational, honest and informed discussions about the different elements of the problem. I feel much less positive about agitation and backlash than you seem to me, because I think they just create wider and wider swings of the pendulum or irrationality, leading further away from any solution. But I suspect our disagreement here is also smaller than it seems — time for a discussion over coffee!