What it tells me is you read an article in Scientific American written by Daniel Cusick a writer for a organization called Climatewire. The numbers used are projections put forward by the IMF, whose parent company is the UN, which is the parent company of the IPCC. The working paper includes estimates of social and environmental costs as fossil fuel subsidies as well. 
What I think will harm me the most? I sometimes wonder what would happen if people like you got your wish and global fossil fuel (heck lets include hydro and nuclear, none of those are going to get built anymore either)  use and transportation was disrupted for a week in say January. After the lights, heat, transportation services, food distribution were back operational and we could get busy dealing with our actual dead and dying, not UN projections, I'm pretty sure my answer would still be the same!