Many thanks Vasco, and thanks for the additional data for context too. I think a big chunk of the UN GAR 2025′s ‘$2 trillion’ cost impact was attributed to things like ecosystem destruction from droughts. Which that report argued had not been properly costed in previous calculations. I take your point about the fact that death rate from equivalent disasters today vs in the past is lower now (with correspondingly lower monetized harm). Cheers!
I do not know how the cost of ecosystem destruction that went into those 2 T$ was estimated. However, some estimates of costs of that type rely on methods which I believe can easily overestimate the real cost. Some rely on how much people reportedly value biodiversity, which is subject to social desirability bias. Others rely on the cost that would be needed to return the environment to its original state, whereas this cost may be much higher than the damage caused to humans.
In addition, I think ecosystem destruction is beneficial to wild animals, given my best guess that wild animals have negative lives, and I believe the effects on wild animals are way larger than those on humans. I calculate GiveWell’s top charities increase the welfare of soil nematodes, mites, and springtails 87.6 k times as much as they increase the welfare of humans due to increasing agricultural land.
Many thanks Vasco, and thanks for the additional data for context too. I think a big chunk of the UN GAR 2025′s ‘$2 trillion’ cost impact was attributed to things like ecosystem destruction from droughts. Which that report argued had not been properly costed in previous calculations. I take your point about the fact that death rate from equivalent disasters today vs in the past is lower now (with correspondingly lower monetized harm). Cheers!
Thanks for clarifying, Matt!
I do not know how the cost of ecosystem destruction that went into those 2 T$ was estimated. However, some estimates of costs of that type rely on methods which I believe can easily overestimate the real cost. Some rely on how much people reportedly value biodiversity, which is subject to social desirability bias. Others rely on the cost that would be needed to return the environment to its original state, whereas this cost may be much higher than the damage caused to humans.
In addition, I think ecosystem destruction is beneficial to wild animals, given my best guess that wild animals have negative lives, and I believe the effects on wild animals are way larger than those on humans. I calculate GiveWell’s top charities increase the welfare of soil nematodes, mites, and springtails 87.6 k times as much as they increase the welfare of humans due to increasing agricultural land.