> IIRC worst case projections of HALYs lost due to climate change is under 10BY Those models are wrong, it's as simple as that. They are probably wrong in way

> IIRC worst case projections of HALYs lost due to climate change is under 10BY Those models are wrong, it's as simple as that. They are probably wrong in ways that would be completely transparent to anyone actually looking into how they are constructed. I can't say specifically what is wrong about the model you are referring to, but let me give an example that illustrates one common issue: Agriculture, forestry and fishing accounted for ~5% of the world economy last year. Loosing 5% of the economy is not good, but it is not that bad. But in reality, of course, loosing that particular 5% would lead to the total collapse of all civilisation. Those kinds of dynamical effects are extremely difficult to model, and literary anyone doing that kind of modelling is a crackpot, no more or less. (But crackpots sometimes win prices, so that's good for them I guess...) My point is: be extremely sceptical of "models" that tries to "value" ecological damage based on current prices. The present biological web on earth is the only place we know in the universe where we know humans can live and thrive. Let's not ruin it for a few percentage points of imaginary economic growth.