This is very misleading. The damage should be proportional to the relevant parts of the economy, rather than as a proportion of the total. Especially keeping in

This is very misleading. The damage should be proportional to the relevant parts of the economy, rather than as a proportion of the total. Especially keeping in mind that certain parts of the global economy are essential (like agriculture) and others less so. For example, suppose in year 1800 or whatever, 20% of some region's economy is agriculture. Drought occurs, and food production goes down by half. So gdp goes down by 10%. In 2024, agriculture is 4% of the economy. Drought again kills half the food production. GDP goes down by 2%. Are we doing better?