That was one of my major questions with this article. The author leans pretty heavily on the 2.7% loss in global GDP by 2100 that is predicted to occur because

That was one of my major questions with this article. The author leans pretty heavily on the 2.7% loss in global GDP by 2100 that is predicted to occur because of climate change. While GDP is surely important, I think it's a pretty shoddy metric to evaluate the potential damage of climate change. Within a century we are going to do irreversible damage to environmental assets that have developed over millions, sometimes even billions, of years. And like you said, we don't even fully understand how many of those systems even work yet. We won't ever have a great coral reef or Amazon rainforest again unless we want to wait another few million years. And those assets' value is not just intrinsic, they have real economic, social, cultural value. To measure the loss of those things in GDP seems to be inadequate.