A common argument from climate change minimalists is that its impact on the economy by 2100 will be negligible. They suggest that even if climate change reduces the global GDP by a few percent, the economy will still be significantly larger, perhaps 20 times its current size. So, a slight reduction to 19.7 times larger is seen as a minor issue, suggesting economic growth will offset climate change's impacts. You can see the argument in action
I’m not an economist, but from my understanding, GDP isn’t the end all be all if higher is better. It doesn’t measure how much wealth you keep. It doesn’t measure the utility of what is produced. Say we both have crotch kicking businesses. I go to you as a private individual, pay you $100 to kick my in the testicles, and then you come to my business as a private individual for the same service. We just made the GDP go up $200, and all we got out of it was sore genitals. Both of us are actually poorer because we will pay taxes one that money.
What does this have to do with climate? Say we replace all fossil fuels with renewables in a made up country on January of next year. We used to spend $1 trillion a year on fossil fuels. We spent 2 trillion on renewables, so our GDP went up that year by that trillion. A year later, it goes down by 1.5 trillion because we didn’t have to buy oil. We are still better off than last year because we kept more of what we produced.