The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group II has concluded that global warming of 2.5˚C would cost the equivalent to losing between 0.2-2.0% of annual income.

Again, the actual consensus on damage is lower than what people imagine and scenarios propagated in grey literature by Environmental organisations.

That cost is primarily borne by those in undeveloped regions, where 0.2-2.0% of average global annual income can easily equal >= 100% of local income.

Further, from the report (emphasis theirs):

> It is very likely that globally aggregated figures underestimate the damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable impacts. It is virtually certain that aggregate estimates of costs mask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions, countries and populations.

It's extremely disingenuous to provide the 0.2-2.0% figure without the massive footnote that this is a stark underestimate.

Also the benefit of electricity is greatest when brought to places with low levels of development.