The cost of not adapting to climate change...

According to The Environment Agency:

Global emissions of greenhouse gases need to peak in the next 10-15 years and then fall rapidly to limit future climate change to manageable levels. This is possible using technologies that are already available and would cost an estimated one per cent of global GDP by 2050. This would be a small fraction of the estimated £3.82 trillion in damages from future excessive floods, droughts, storms and heat.

Ho hum. Over the last three years, there has been an unusual amount of snow in the UK, I do not know whether this has to do with the sun spot minimum or 'catastrophic climate change'; whether it is pure coincidence or likely to continue; and/or whether it merely masks the underlying warming trend (yup, still Number One out of 6.5 million he added smugly). Neither do I know whether the estimate of lost economic output for every day that we allow snow to hinder people from getting to work etc is as high as £1.2 billion per day.

But if the warmenists have seriously pencilled in annual expenditure of £14 billion for the UK (one per cent of GDP), might it not be a good idea to spend a few quid on salt/grit, snowploughs & shovels, and maybe bunging some of the millions of unemployed people a few quid to go out and get it sorted? In theory, as long as the daily costs are less than £1.2 billion (or about 60 million man-hours, if you work on a full-cost basis of £20 per hour), we are ahead of the game.
-------------------------
UPDATE: Adam Collyer in the comments points out that the Environment Agency's maths is completely f***ed. Global GDP (sic) is about $58 trillion, so if we spend one per cent of that each year for the next forty years it will cost us $23 trillion, which is six times higher than the cumulative estimated cost of the damage of the spuriously accurate $3.82 trillion.

In return, I warmly recommend this fun with numbers post over at Adam's.