This article sprinkles the word "risk" which people interpret as "bad things are coming" but actually means "there's some probability of the bad thing happening."

The probability is not quantified so it's impossible to react to. Over-protecting from a risk is as bad and under-protecting.

For example - something bad can happen to you any time you leave your house. However if you "protect" against that the risk by never leaving the house you are almost certainly worse off.

In case of climate the "thing to do" to protect from the risk is to minimize the economic activity that has improved life for everyone. Stopping that has an immediate "cost" which looks large compared to the unquantified risk it allegedly mitigates.

> over-protecting from a risk is as bad as under-protecting

How would protecting ourselves against 50 °C summer heat (122 °F) ever be as bad as keeping 40° heatwaves or better yet, a return to the 35° summers?

50° means a human mass extinction event. There are no corporate profits possible in that scenario anyway

> Over-protecting from a risk is as bad and under-protecting.

This is not generally true.

> For example - something bad can happen to you any time you leave your house.

The better analogue would be: outside of your house is a robber that will rob you if you leave the house. But you can't quantify how bad it will be to get robbed.