Elizabeth Kolbert

are the economic losses from climate change, which are high and going higher every day, nor do they take into account the health risks.

So this is another pollution, a fossil fuel pollution.

So this is another trend that we're seeing in this administration of calculating the cost, the cost to industry, the cost to consumers, and not calculating the

If you don't calculate in the health benefits, if you don't calculate in the benefits of avoided climate change, then, of course, you get a very skewed figure.

And we have now seen this in a couple of instances where they've actually literally eliminated the calculation of lives saved.

On a monetary basis, saying that it's too uncertain to do that.

It's too uncertain to, you know, factor in the benefits of life saves.

Well, once you do that, you know, obviously you're going to get some pretty, pretty skewed figures.

Yes, exactly.

I mean, the financial implications of...

climate change are enormous.

And we're just talking about the financial implications.

We're not talking about people who will

literally not have homes, not have crops potentially as a result.

So we are already, there's no doubt about it, in the U.S., a very affluent society, we are already feeling very significant effects from climate change, as you say, from flood insurance and fire insurance.

Those are definitely climate change related.

And we're also seeing

In many other ways, you know, simply homes falling into the ocean, for example.

Well, they'll probably all be consolidated into, you know, one big lawsuit.

Well, I guess the question is whether the court will want to take it on, given that it has this precedent of Massachusetts versus EPA.