> 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.