1. 70% loss is incorrect as others have pointed out.
2. What 'catastrophic runaway warming'? The latest IPCC report says 1.5 degrees by 2100. Neither catastrophic nor runaway. That is business as usual scenario, which doesn't factor in the development of new generation methods in the next 80 years, which is a virtual certainty.
There is a 70% loss in generation and transmission. Standard coal plants convert 30-35% of the energy in coal to electricity, ~7% is lost in the lines.
I'm basing my argument on the work of Dr. James Hansen from NASA. The IPCC's predictions keep coming back as incorrect, too conservative. The IPCC has had to rewrite their predictions, the situation is proving worse than they thought.
Dr Hansen has had himself arrested for activism so many place little credence in his views, particularly as he likes to contrast his scientific work with exaggeration when talking to the media.
The IPCC predictions have all been revised downward with each report. The only thing that has increased is their 'confidence level' which is not statistical confidence but author confidence.
I don't know what will happen, but I do know that nobody else does, either. Every single simulation so far has been completely off by a factor which makes it worthless.
The only thing we can predict is that better, cheaper forms of energy will be produced, and these are likely to be lower emissions than what we have today. Pricing out lower income people in the present day in the hope of making a difference is morally wrong in thighs is context.
