Associating action to prevent with 'de-growth' is disinformation from the deniers. Climate change itself is massively de-growth. The question is how to best prevent it.
If you respect and consider ideas that conflict with your own, that's how you can learn new things.
Many factors influence economics; climate change is one part of the equation. There are many examples of climate change's direct impact so far - floods, fires, sea-level rise (requiring investment in massive public works), droughts, etc. I don't think it's debatable that these things have negative economic impact.
Climate change is expected to greatly increase its impact in many ways. Let's not wait until it overcomes all other factors in economic growth and makes our economies shrink.
put your money where your mouth is. Any idiot can generate hysteria in 2026.
Make your prediction about any HDI metric -- Real GDP, Child Mortality, Life Expectancy, Poverty, Malnutrition (hunger) and give me your prediction for 2030 (or any year < 2035). If your doom prediction doesn't come true, Announce to the world, "I'm pretty much clueless about how the universe works and will stop posting hysteria on Social media"
Why 2030? CO2 persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. This doesn't end in 2030.
The goal is not to generate hysteria; but to avoid it. Hitting one or more tipping points [1] is orders of magnitude more destructive than prioritising phasing out fossil fuels, and impossible to undo.
But I do understand that some people have reasons not to care about impacts that have an outsized effect on future generations, so to your request: a recent example of a list of impact predictions is the UK Government joint intelligence committee's national security assessment [2].
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-gdp-over-the-long-...