Suppose that the government is debating whether to spend $100 billion today to address climate change. The benefits of such a policy are estimated to be $700B (ie. the amount of damage society avoids). However, they would not accrue until 100 years from now. A critic of the proposal says that it would be far better to invest the $100 billion (at the current annual market rate of return of 5 percent) and then use the proceeds in 100 years to repair the damage from climate change. a. What is the value in 100 years of $100B invested at a rate of 5%? b. Does the critic have a point? c. Would the argument be valid if the rate of return was 2%? d. Would either policy [$100B for climate change and $100B invested] pass a cost-benefit test?