Suppose that the government is debating whether to spend $100 billion today to address climate change. It is estimated that $700 billion of damage will be averted, but these benefits will accrue 100 years from now. A critic of the proposal says that it would be far better to invest the $100 billion, earning an average real return of 5% per year, and then use the proceeds in 100 years to repair the damage from climate change. Is the critic correct? Explain why or why not.