There's been a number of articles on how we've put so much plant and tree food (CO2) in the atmosphere that it could have prevented the next ice-age. Here'a a few:
According to new research, global warming may have helped stave off the next ice age.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 673997.stm
Global warming could stave off next ice age for 100,000 years
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-clima ... G320160113
Global Warming May Have Prevented Super Ice Age
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5086394/global-w ... er-ice-age
So what causes more economic damage and deaths in the long run, living in an area that gets more frequent and/or stronger tornados, droughts, floods, hurricanes or being covered with a few miles of solid ice for hundreds if not thousands of years?
Ans.: Being covered in miles of solid ice.
So, since we've possibly staved off the next ice age and prevented massive economic damage and deaths (as well as helped green the earth and fertilize the world's food crops), shouldn't we get paid by the parts of the world that we saved for doing such a wonderful thing?
Shouldn't we also get paid by the countries who wouldn't be impacted by an ice age but now won't have to accept hundreds of millions of ice-age refugees?
(mine: show me the money)