Not exact matches
Given the right approach, remediation could well be
cheaper and simpler
than mitigation, could certainly wait for appropriate technology to mature, and also has the benefit that it addresses the risk that fossil emissions aren't the reason, or at least the only reason, for the rise in pCO2.
We have the evidence, we have a consensus on scientific interpretation, we have the investment, we know (Stern) that
mitigation now rather
than later is
cheaper.
Mitigation is
cheaper than you think because it doesn't remove money from the economy, just redirects it into more worthwhile futureproof directions.
Here's a slightly more difficult position to defend: We don't know whether adaptation will be
cheaper or easier
than mitigation, but, since it is the only one likely to be acceptable to voters in a democratic society, it is the only morally acceptable one.
The only dissidence on global warming permitted within the politically correct media is the Lomborg position, which is essentially economic: - that adaptation is
cheaper and easier
than mitigation.