More reading (along the same lines)

www.france24.com/en/20200706-...

Some reading on Nordhaus and his disciples:
theintercept.com/2023/10/29/w...

The warnings from the NGFS are based on récent economic science that is much more in line than Nordhaus with what natural scientists are telling us

I trust natural science more than economics - don't you?

Yesterday, the COP30 Leaders Summit was warned by the NGFS of “'mounting evidence'” that delayed climate actions could harm the global economy through higher unemployment, lower economic growth and pressures on budgets from costs in dealing with extreme events."
www.ft.com/content/f9be...

Oh, now I see where you're trying to go...

The latest IPCC assessment cycle concluded in 2022, therefore, it reflected the state of science before 2021 (and very timidly, IMHO)

A lot has happened since then...

What matters, I think, is how practitioners consider the issue, eg, the NGFS

I think the emerging consensus is that climate impacts on GDP will most likely be much higher than what Nordhaus has found, and clearly higher than mitigation costs, which is what should matter

I don't have a crystal ball and I'm not sure there is one "right curve" here, but I reckon the black one is probably closer to the truth

Nordhaus is flat wrong

You need to do some reading: there is no plan to "cover the planet"... except maybe with greenhouse gases and extreme weather events

Well, there is no LDC with zero carbon emissions either, so, I'm wondering what kind of correlation you had in mind with your killer fact?

Even in Paris!

Le comité demande la création d'un groupe d'experts international sur les inégalités, à l'instar du GIEC

ipdcolumbia.org/wp-content/u...