of totally ignoring global warming, (unlikely), vs devoting all our resources* to fighting/slowing down/stopping, global warming?

*I am assuming that China, 3rd world, etc will insist on catching up before they pitch in. Let’s assume they join the fight in the next 50 years.

So, we are the leader in the fight, doing more than any other country on Earth, what will the environment look like in a hundred years, vs plodding along as we are now? It has to be better, but what does the cost/benefit analysis predict 1%, 50%?

Any answer is acceptable other than, “all we know is what will happen if we do nothing”. To sell insurance you have to be willing to guarantee a benefit. You can’t just say that “all we know is that you are going to die if you don’t buy insurance”.