The cost-benefit calculation that the author has resorted to has often been deemed too harsh in the public domain. But this is the type of exercise we should embrace in answering such questions. As long as the scientific investigations are confident enough to reject any causal relationship between climate change and such 'super-storm's, we should be very aware of popular suggestions such as a drastic reduction in CO2 emission or the likes. But even if there exists a relationship, the costs and benefits of potential actions must be carefully identified and compared. We all, in our very daily lives, have 'damaged' the environment in some way or other, but given the substantially high benefits compared to the meager costs involved, they have not often been labeled inappropriate. Nothing changes, in principle, when we do this type of calculation on a more macro level. We have to take into account the relative cheapness of 'curative' and 'preventive' actions. If the propensity of natural calamities is more/less exogenous, then that must also be paid heed. It is always hard to think through the consequences but it must be done to advance inter-temporal social welfare.