This is too vague to be meaningful. Donald's statement is: > It’s becoming apparent that the 21st century will be marked by a series of natural disasters of v

This is too vague to be meaningful. Donald's statement is: > It’s becoming apparent that the 21st century will be marked by a series of natural disasters of various severities and speeds that regularly erode global supply capacity and quality of life. All natural disasters "erode global supply capacity and quality of life". Before and during climate change. (Before much more than now, to be fair, because we spent enormous amounts of energy in securing ourselves from the effects of natural disasters.) Disasters frequency is increasing, according to science. But how much? And how much damage do they cause, in proportion to our wealth? So far, global supply capacity and quality of life have been steadily increasing, despite the "erosion". So, in order for the statement to be meaningful, it is necessary to specify whether the amount of damages is relevant with respect to our current wealth and rate of growth. I think that so far, despite our obsession with it, the impact has been absolutely negligible. The current pandemic serves as a reminder of what a real global disaster looks like. It's not a newspaper headline or a paper full of "may"s and "could"s. And it's not a "has been made x% more probable", either.