Questions remain for the AGW alarmists, page-63

So many of the alarmists misuse the precautionary principle, by never stopping to ask the question "what is the net cost to human suffering of rapidly de-carbonising the economy" Briefly, you have starvation of the poorest as food prices rise due to the diversion of agricultural land to carbon sinks and biofuels. You have the elderly dying in greater numbers as a result of not being able to pay bills. You have millions of impoverished people around the world reverting to toxic fuels such as cow dung due to the lack of cheap fossil fuel energy. You exacerbate the high population issues in the third world, as it is the lifting from poverty that lowers birth rates. All of these are measurable, and occur now.
Demonstrate to me, that this current suffering due to being "precautionary" is outweighed by what may happen 100 years from now.
The precautionary principle, actually suggests that since we aren't certain about the future outcomes, we should focus our resources on helping people alive now rather than at the end of the century.