The assertion is that a 25% reduction in farming capacity should have a nonzero negative effect on non-farming gdp, due to people not being fed
> They conclude that farming productivity will be reduced by 25% and farming is 4% of global GDP, so it’s 1%. Then they model some effect on the consumer because food prices go up.
> It does not occur to the authors to model impact of physical result of that, which is, famine and political instability that comes with it.
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...
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?
> Research predicts multiple famines due to simultaneous crop failures.
What research?
do at least some basic reading on the subject.