One often hears people say, "Oh, we'll just adapt to higher temperatures." This might sound comforting, but in practice adaptation may be a lot harder than you might realize. As an example, this Reuters article talks about how hard it is to protect the Houston/Galveston area from severe hurricanes and sea level rise. See a similarly themed article in Rolling Stone about Miami.
The 10th anniversary of the landfall of Hurricane Katrina was accompanied by a lot of analysis of the climate implications of that event. Here is a great analysis about what that event tells us about adaptation as a policy response to climate change.
The U.S. National Research Council have put out a thorough assessment of the externalities of energy: The Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use (2010).
This Forbes article lists "deaths per kW-hour" of various types of fuel. Unsurprising, coal is the most dangerous. This article also has a good bibliography of sources for this kind of information.
The U.S. National Academy of Science has put out comprehensive reports on carbon cycle engineering and on solar radiation management. There is also a 4-page summary. The U.K. Royal Society has written a report on geoengineering; get it here.
Nice historical perspective on geoengineering by James Fleming.
Here are two books which take the opposite views of geoengineering:
- David Keith, A Case for Climate Engineering, 2013 [On the lighter side, watch this interview from The Colbert Report with Prof. Keith. Informative and hilarious.] See also this article, which describes Keith's view of a moderate geoengineering approach that might be more palatable than maximum efforts.
- Mike Hulme, Can Science Fix Climate Change: A Case Against Climate Engineering, 2014