Well what is an impact?
I'm not Bill C here asking what the meaning of "is" is. I'm being serious. What impacts are you talking about Clean? It's not lives, because the link I included is all about how many fewer people die today than before, yes, because technology. Technology does not favor the Luddite set.
You made the point yourself, thanks to Satellites, 4WD, petrochemicals, modern medicine and so on, the "impacts" of severe weather are much lower in terms of casualties, this despite radically higher population densities. Which goes to my point that perhaps I made in another thread. Other impacts, e.g. economic impacts can also be categorized as creative destruction in many regards.
I am of the belief that we, the West, are simply not going to get the rest of the world to sign onto a bunch of policy prescriptions (Because they don't rise to the level of being called solutions, they're not even close) that will impoverish all those who sign onto them without anything close to certainty that they will work. To the extent that pretty much 95% of all population growth on the globe will happen outside "the West" over the coming decades, we don't get to dictate, control, or otherwise effectively steer any policies or solutions to the problem. To that extent, asking "The West" to give up 20-80% of its standard of living to achieve a goal, that more than half the world is pretty demonstrably not going to co-sign is politically speaking, a fool's errand. (Cue Bruce Hudson to say, "it's working, just do more faster and it'll all be OK") Till we run out of rare earth minerals or China has entirely monopolized them and you won't be able to make two triple A battery cells to rub together.
To expand on my analogy above, if Canada and Australia could go zero emissions tomorrow, it would be erased almost as fast. If Europe and the US joined in, we would simply be arresting the rise ofCO2 for perhaps 1-2 decades before the less than agreeable rest of the world ate those gains as well. So as Stewart Brand argued, then you climb into the morass of geo-engineering. If in fact CO2 keeps rising and if in fact global environmental changes come to pass sooner or later the more militant warmists must come to the conclusion the Geo-engineering is going to have to happen to save our collective skins, even if the unenlightened don't want to go there. There is an overwhelming logic that they must either start killing masses of people, (No doubt a talking point at the extinction rebellion knitting circle) , like billions of them (Carbon consumers) or start geo-engineering our way out of the problem regardless of who is on board or not. Then for the low cost of $1BN per year they can stop the planet warming, at huge moral risk. (Moral risk being that if you can stop the problem for that little money and effort, lets not even try to stop dumping CO2 in the air, lets just pay for the shade we need and consume whatever we feel like because the tab is low to pay annually).
So what of the impact of adverse weather events? Well, it's mostly economic, if you look at systems that are bought and paid for getting whacked, then they have to be rebuilt either in place or moved inland so they don't get wrecked as quickly next time. (Working with the example of coastal communities suffering flooding and storms as a result of AWG) Call it the strategic retreat solution. Well if greens can sit here and tell me that we can remake our economies by building new green power systems and completely reconfiguring our societies and it'll create millions of new jobs, well turn about is fair play. you can argue just as easily, or rather more easily that we can create whole new millions of jobs and sectors of our economy on the basis of strategic retreat and geo-engineering. You want energy efficient homes? Fine, do that (Good for me, I'm an architect, I make money when people build new or change buildings). Build those fine new homes away from the coast where they are less susceptible to "impact". you want a golden new future? Great, let insurance companies start participating in urban design and development, I garantee you will see "impact" go down and annual losses go down. You just won't live too close to the ocean anymore. Which of course will have its own impacts. (The laws of unintended consequences really do run the show in this realm far beyond what anybody wants to imagine)
Imagine if you took all the proposed dollars for green new deals, de-coaling Germany and every other green initiative. Now split that in half, get rid of the half baked shit that is a waste of time and delivers marginal improvement. keep half for useful green stuff, keep 5% for basic research and getting new ideas developed, take the remaining 45% and actually plow it into resilience of your society and I bet you'd have far more impressive results over 100 years. Keep in mind, half the world IS NOT GOING TO BUY INTO the current green policy initiatives, you are bailing out the titanic with a tea spoon, you will be overcome. So plow valuable resources into reducing pollution and building resilience. Life will continue to be enjoyable and will end up being less risky in the short and mid-term for modern societies than swallowing green policies whole which will simply endanger entire economies. Keep in mind the risk of economic failure for the West due to swallowing too much green policy, the end result is you hand the fate of the world to China, unilaterally.
Reducing pollution is still an excellent rationale for reducing coal use or even scaling back gradually on hydro-carbons that are not used to make chemicals and plastics. I can buy into that. Building resilience is still an excellent rationale for building solar and wind farms, but perhaps not with the goal of powering whole grids with them. You want impacts, fine, look at what economic impacts are of really bad environmentally induced events and build resilience to reduce the economic impacts of what is very likely going to happen because we "The West" cannot stop it anyhow, without killing tons of people or engaging in geo-engineering against the consensus of most other nations. Building an all renewables grid which ends up being worse for ecosystems and destroys resilience is not something I can buy into. Developing sensible interlocking systems that are mutually reinforcing and trend towards less and less pollution over time while making us safer and happier is definitely something I can buy into. The two solutions are not worlds apart but the underlaying reasons are and only one of those two approaches responds to humans wants and needs in a realistic manner.
Commence shit flinging about the post at your leisure.