The Archbishop of Canterbury presented clearly how much is at stake when political leaders decide how hard to push to curb global heating: inadequate effort could result in a much bigger genocide than the one Hitler launched.

Apparently some criticized this statement as disrespectful to Jews, and he apologized for the alleged disrespect. This criticism puzzles me, because I don't see any disrespect in his words. They seem entirely valid to me as a statement of the danger that we face. What are you going to compare the biggest genocide of all time with, other than the biggest known genocide of the past?

I think that 6 billion deaths from climate mayhem is plausible. Of course, that's just handwaving -- we can't know enough to make more than a rough estimate. If we take effective action and are lucky, perhaps only a few hundred million will die from climate disorder. If we run into surprise positive feedbacks, all 7-8 billion humans could die from climate disorder. All depends on how effectively we curb global heating.