> I saw some of the most recent projections for global GDP impacts due to climate change and it was a fraction of US GDP. That's unfortunate, but much better th

> I saw some of the most recent projections for global GDP impacts due to climate change and it was a fraction of US GDP. That's unfortunate, but much better than I thought. We will make it. Read the assumptions behind those projections and get back to me. They are very, very conservative and should be read as a "best case scenario". Ex: - Economic growth is assumed as part of the model - They look at the marginal economic cost of an additional very hot day today, look at the projected increase, and assume that the impact will scale linearly Even those numbers are damning, and are put forth to help justify the cost of climate action. Reading them as "well that's not that bad" is just way off the mark. > US CO2 emissions peaked in around 2007. Per capita CO2 in the US is the lowest it's been in 50 years. We're behind the EU in CO2 reduction, but it is going down. Not nearly fast enough. Direction is correct, but magnitude is not nearly as big as it needs to be. Assuming that technological progress will make up the difference is magical thinking that the data does not back up. You're hand-waving away what experts are saying based on a gut feeling of "it's not going to be that bad" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias). I recommend reading some papers, especially the NCA, and really sitting with what they say. https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/ https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/