> Do you need to get it explicitly spelled out for you to realize that the environment and ecosystems everywhere are under extreme stress

That's anthropomorphizing. The ecosystem cannot be stressed because it has no natural/good state.

> And why the hell would the GDP be ANY good measurement, since it does not include any environmental costs (if I don't need to correctly dispose of my trash and can burn it cheaper, I have an economic advantage in the way of less costs)?

Because people predict life will eventually get worse. Your scenario is why people are making bad long term decisions (according to you) but the reason it's a bad long term choice is because it's supposed to lead to bad outcomes for humanity. GDP is a pretty decent measure of quality of life.

If the climate gets worse but quality of life gets better, it's not quite the catastrophe that's often claimed.

Not OP but that's the point being made.

Essentially you're both talking about different things. you're saying the environment will be worse and OP is saying we'll be better off.

You're also saying a worse environment will make us worse of but not backing that up with data. OP is. That data might be bad but I haven't seen you say anything that would make me doubt it but the OECD has overseen a period of immense improvement of all the measures OP is talking about.

OPs argument is that climate change might kill a billion people but the energy used that creates that climate change created two billion people with better lives.

One could argue that heat related deaths could be due to the fact that there are more old people alive right now compared to any point in time in human history due to high life expectancy and they are the most vulnerable to heatwaves. Had the percentage of younger population been higher, the numbers would have been different. Also in a way it’s Karma, that older population is the one that lived their lives like there’s no future and thought that climate change is a problem for younger generations and now they would be the first to die like flies

>You think life expectancy will stay the same when forests burn down, we run out of water and crops, conflicts start everywhere, cities start flooding, we get more and more storms, energy crises because we have to shut down power plants etc etc?

It will go up. The rest of the third world is at very low life expectancy and the next 100 years will involve a lot of progress for them. You have not shown me any evidence that it will go down.