> incorrect assumption that we can’t feed everyone on the planet You are the one making incorrect assumptions, specifically that food production is a steady an

> incorrect assumption that we can’t feed everyone on the planet You are the one making incorrect assumptions, specifically that food production is a steady and constant process like producing iPhones. In the real world, crops fail due to seasonal weather all the time and it affects global food prices. Research predicts multiple famines due to simultaneous crop failures in global bread baskets. That’s why responsible countries like Norway started stockpiling food. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-07-05/global-food-roundup-crisis-grain-stockpile-highlights-food-worries https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-07-05/global... The point is not even that - economists are simply not qualified to assess accuracy of their base assumptions. now I have to debate people who claim we should not address climate change because worst case is 1% damage to GDP. What are the report margins on that? Suppose there is a 10% chance that the drop is higher, like 30%/35% and does cause a famine specifically concentrated in the US, or nuclear armed Pakistan, and Global GDP falls by 40%. Have you seen them report finds the n a way that accounts for, however small; possibility of total disaster?