Cross out “a great deal of” and I agree. More than “Some skepticism”. As for an overall assessment of Lomborg, I’ll leave that for GD.
Back to the OP. Yes, both the benefits and costs of global climactic change are routinely considered. The go-to place for deliberate and historically cautious scientific reporting is the IPCC or the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. Website.
They issue huge reports. Here is an excerpt from the FAQ of Working Group II of the Fifth Assessment report, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, 2014. [INDENT][INDENT] FAQ 7: Are the future impacts of climate change only negative?
Might there be positive impacts as well?
[Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,
and 30]
Overall, the report identifies many more negative impacts than positive
impacts projected for the future, especially for high magnitudes and
rates of climate change. Climate change will, however, have different
impacts on people around the world and those effects will vary not only
by region but over time, depending on the rate and magnitude of climate
change. For example, many countries will face increased challenges for
economic development, increased risks from some diseases, or degraded
ecosystems, but some countries will probably have increased opportunities
for economic development, reduced instances of some diseases, or
expanded areas of productive land. Crop yield changes will vary with
geography and by latitude. Patterns of potential catch for fisheries are
changing globally as well, with both positive and negative consequences.
Availability of resources such as usable water will also depend on
changing rates of precipitation, with decreased availability in many
places but possible increases in runoff and groundwater recharge in
some regions like the high latitudes and wet tropics. [/INDENT][/INDENT]
In case anybody is wondering, the entire FAQ is written in that sort of dry scientific language.
Jumping ahead: SlackerInc: There is a fair amount of assessment of anthropogenic climate change that implicitly assumes optimal adaptation. But recognize that if Iowa yields go down and North Dakota yields go up, that inevitable governmental intervention won’t make that a zero sum effect. In practice redeploying resources from one region to another is likely to be inefficient and expensive, unless it occurs predictably and gradually. Which is won’t.
For example, we should probably ban development (or demand private insurance which won’t be available in practice) for certain beach front properties in certain locations. But we don’t. The rebuilding of Louisiana after hurricane Katrina simply hasn’t been conducted with particular foresight. It’s these sorts of politically difficult and fairly understandable policy errors which ratchet up the costs of global climactic change.