"It's worse than we thought." Sound familiar?

[AverageJoe90]

92. Not in the Tundra itself, but definitely to some extent in the SubArctic north, right around........

the latitudes of Whitehorse and Yellowknife, though, it can be conceded that it'd probably be easier to grow it around Edmonton or Saskatoon (around 53* and 52*N, respectively)

This will never happen so 7-8 billion of us will fuckn die

I don't think so. 1-2 billion? Maybe, and that alone would be a great tragedy. But 7-8 billion? Only with a full-scale nuclear war and at leastone other major disaster, such as Yellowstone erupting, or Apophis hitting East Asia, or whatever, MIGHT get there. Might.

(scientifically supported relationship between economic output and atmospheric carbon)

Somewhat so, to a degree. But again, they are not completely tied in altogether. If I may, look at what happened with Sweden's carbon tax, when it was instituted in 1991(all credit goes to Wikipedia, and associated sources.).

"In January 1991, Sweden enacted a CO2 tax of 0.25 SEK/kg ($100 or EUR 72 per ton) on the use of oil, coal, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, petrol, and aviation fuel used in domestic travel. Industrial users paid half the rate (between 1993 and 1997, 25% of the rate), and certain high-energy industries such as commercial horticulture, mining, manufacturing and the pulp and paper industry were fully exempted from these new taxes.
In 1997 the rate was raised to 0.365 SEK/kg ($150 per ton) of CO2.[112][113] In 2007, the tax was SEK 930 (EUR 101) per ton of CO2.[114] The full tax is paid in transport, space heating, and non-combined heat and power generation. Owing to the many exemptions, oil accounts for 96% of the revenues from the tax, although it produces less than three-quarters of CO2 from fuel combustion.
The tax is credited with spurring a significant move from hydrocarbon fuels to biomass. As Swedish Society for Nature Conservation climate change expert Emma Lindberg said, “It was the one major reason that steered society towards climate-friendly solutions. It made polluting more expensive and focused people on finding energy-efficient solutions.”[115][116]
It increased the use of bioenergy,” said University of Lund Professor Thomas Johansson, former director of energy and climate at the UN Development Programme. “It had a major impact in particular on heating. Every city in Sweden uses district heating. Before, coal or oil were used for district heating. Now biomass is used, usually waste from forests and forest industries.”
Economic growth appears to be unaffected. Between 1990 and 2006, Sweden’s economy grew by 44-46 percent (approx 2,8% annually)"

If the Swedes can do it, then America definitely has a chance as well. The biggest problem, as I've stated, is when will we finally get our acts together? And certainly, no amount of handwringing or doom-mongering from the likes of Light or McPherson, will help us any more than the antics of deniers like the idiot at WUWT, and those who enable them(i.e. the Koch Bros., etc.).