What if saving our lives weren’t profitable? Hmmm.

Studies like this are why economists are up there with chiropractors and naturopaths. They are comparing the opportunity costs of a omnicidal path during the 6th great mass extinction vs a path of a viable humanity.

The tortured logic of economists is a big reason why I don’t think we’re going to make it.

It is both not useful and false to model GDP under global warming.

Higher insurance, higher HVAC energy consumption, higher food water and natural fiber prices, and higher reconstruction activity after floods, storms, forest fires all increase GDP. GDP doesn’t care if you are spending more to survive or buying a bigger yacht.

Death from disasters, heat, or unaffordable cost of living, and lower property values from both insurance costs and drought driven poor agriculture productivity is a loss in real wealth, where life/health is included in wealth.

Cost of global warming is only the latter, and cost of survival.