Economists' erroneous estimates of damages from climate change

Economists have predicted that damages from global warming will be as low as 2.1% of global economic production for a 3$^\circ$C rise in global average surface temperature, and 7.9% for a 6$^\circ$C rise. Such relatively trivial estimates of economic damages -- when these economists otherwise assume that human economic productivity will be an order of magnitude higher than today -- contrast strongly with predictions made by scientists of significantly reduced human habitability from climate change. Nonetheless, the coupled economic and climate models used to make such predictions have been influential in the international climate change debate and policy prescriptions. Here we review the empirical work done by economists and show that it severely underestimates damages from climate change by committing several methodological errors, including neglecting tipping points, and assuming that economic sectors not exposed to the weather are insulated from climate change. Most fundamentally, the influential Integrated Assessment Model DICE is shown to be incapable of generating an economic collapse, regardless of the level of damages. Given these flaws, economists' empirical estimates of economic damages from global warming should be rejected as unscientific, and models that have been calibrated to them, such as DICE, should not be used to evaluate economic risks from climate change, or in the development of policy to attenuate damages.