Analysis / report

Fatal Calculations

How Economics has Underestimated Climate Damage & Encouraged Inaction

By David Spratt / Alia Armistead
Wednesday 1 April, 2020
Share

Conventional economic models have dangerously underestimated the true risks of climate change, encouraging delay instead of driving action. This report reveals how flawed assumptions and outdated tools are fuelling a false sense of security.

Summary

  • Conventional climate economics has consistently downplayed future climate damage and risk.
  • Cost–benefit models fail to account for tipping points, feedback loops, and unquantifiable losses.
  • The Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) used in policymaking are deeply flawed and unreliable .
  • Economic impacts such as societal collapse, conflict, and migration cannot be meaningfully priced.
  • Risk analysis must prioritise extreme-case outcomes over mid-range predictions.
  • An emergency-level economic shift is required to avoid catastrophic climate consequences.

The failure of mainstream economic thinking to grasp the scale and urgency of the climate crisis is a critical concern. This report investigates how, at the centre of global climate policy, economic models significantly understate damages, rely on unrealistic assumptions, and ignore system dynamics like tipping points and irreversible feedbacks.

This report explains why key modelling tools—especially Integrated Assessment Models—are ill-equipped to handle existential climate risk. Their influence on the UN climate process has led to policy choices that favour short-term economic comfort over long-term survival.

The report argues that future damages from climate disruption are in many cases beyond valuation. As such, the prevailing economic logic behind delayed action is not only flawed—it is dangerous. Fatal Calculations makes the case for abandoning false precision and embracing risk management focused on worst-case scenarios. It calls for immediate, emergency-scale economic transformation to reduce the risk of societal collapse and ensure long-term human security.

If damaging tipping cascades can occur and a global tipping point cannot be ruled out, then this is an existential threat to civilization. no amount of economic cost–benefit analysis is going to help us.

— Prof Tim Lenton (Lenton Et Al. 2019)

SCA_ReportCovers_Resize.v2
report

Fatal Calculations

Climate economics has consistently downplayed future climate damage and risk.

More Analysis
This submission argues climate disruption, not military rivalry, represents Australia’s greatest security risk, demanding a major rethink of AUKUS-era spending priorities.
Climate disinformation threatens democracy, demanding urgent national response.
Government misses an obvious climate moment during extreme weather crisis.
Policymakers and scientific institutions like the IPCC place too much emphasis on middle-of-the-road probability estimates rather than plausible worst-case outcomes.