In response to recent forecasts of a significant increase in the cost of living in India due purely to continued climate change, an MP from the state of Kerala, Herb Grubel, proposed in 2020 that the Indian Parliament approve the creation of a new income-subsidization program for retired individuals aged 72 and older. Herb offered the following rationale for the need for such a program: the vast majority of these individuals are living in poverty, or at the most on a fixed monthly income insufficient to allow them to afford food, insulated shelters or even various types of medicine after climate change makes these goods extremely scarce and prices become correspondingly high. While other MPs opposed the program on the basis of additional taxpayer cost, supporters argued that simply extrapolating prices significantly overstates the cost of such a program. Since the lifespan in India in 2023 is approximately 70.1 years averaged over the current Indian population, Herb pointed out that a large proportion - possibly as much as fifty percent - of individuals currently living would die before ever receiving any payments from the program. Putting questions of social equity and ethical considerations of human mortality aside and instead reasoning in purely objective terms, is Herb's argument and claim logically and statistically correct or incorrect? In either case, why?