Literature DB >> 29795251

Large potential reduction in economic damages under UN mitigation targets.

Marshall Burke1,2,3, W Matthew Davis4, Noah S Diffenbaugh5,6.   

Abstract

International climate change agreements typically specify global warming thresholds as policy targets 1 , but the relative economic benefits of achieving these temperature targets remain poorly understood2,3. Uncertainties include the spatial pattern of temperature change, how global and regional economic output will respond to these changes in temperature, and the willingness of societies to trade present for future consumption. Here we combine historical evidence 4 with national-level climate 5 and socioeconomic 6 projections to quantify the economic damages associated with the United Nations (UN) targets of 1.5 °C and 2 °C global warming, and those associated with current UN national-level mitigation commitments (which together approach 3 °C warming 7 ). We find that by the end of this century, there is a more than 75% chance that limiting warming to 1.5 °C would reduce economic damages relative to 2 °C, and a more than 60% chance that the accumulated global benefits will exceed US$20 trillion under a 3% discount rate (2010 US dollars). We also estimate that 71% of countries-representing 90% of the global population-have a more than 75% chance of experiencing reduced economic damages at 1.5 °C, with poorer countries benefiting most. Our results could understate the benefits of limiting warming to 1.5 °C if unprecedented extreme outcomes, such as large-scale sea level rise 8 , occur for warming of 2 °C but not for warming of 1.5 °C. Inclusion of other unquantified sources of uncertainty, such as uncertainty in secular growth rates beyond that contained in existing socioeconomic scenarios, could also result in less precise impact estimates. We find considerably greater reductions in global economic output beyond 2 °C. Relative to a world that did not warm beyond 2000-2010 levels, we project 15%-25% reductions in per capita output by 2100 for the 2.5-3 °C of global warming implied by current national commitments 7 , and reductions of more than 30% for 4 °C warming. Our results therefore suggest that achieving the 1.5 °C target is likely to reduce aggregate damages and lessen global inequality, and that failing to meet the 2 °C target is likely to increase economic damages substantially.

Entities:  

Year:  2018        PMID: 29795251     DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0071-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nature        ISSN: 0028-0836            Impact factor:   49.962


  12 in total

1.  Temperatures and cyclones strongly associated with economic production in the Caribbean and Central America.

Authors:  Solomon M Hsiang
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-08-16       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production.

Authors:  Marshall Burke; Solomon M Hsiang; Edward Miguel
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change.

Authors:  Wolfram Schlenker; Michael J Roberts
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-08-28       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States.

Authors:  Solomon Hsiang; Robert Kopp; Amir Jina; James Rising; Michael Delgado; Shashank Mohan; D J Rasmussen; Robert Muir-Wood; Paul Wilson; Michael Oppenheimer; Kate Larsen; Trevor Houser
Journal:  Science       Date:  2017-06-30       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation.

Authors:  Joeri Rogelj; David L McCollum; Andy Reisinger; Malte Meinshausen; Keywan Riahi
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2013-01-03       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 6.  Determining global population distribution: methods, applications and data.

Authors:  D L Balk; U Deichmann; G Yetman; F Pozzi; S I Hay; A Nelson
Journal:  Adv Parasitol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.870

7.  CLIMATE ECONOMICS. Opportunities for advances in climate change economics.

Authors:  M Burke; M Craxton; C D Kolstad; C Onda; H Allcott; E Baker; L Barrage; R Carson; K Gillingham; J Graff-Zivin; M Greenstone; S Hallegatte; W M Hanemann; G Heal; S Hsiang; B Jones; D L Kelly; R Kopp; M Kotchen; R Mendelsohn; K Meng; G Metcalf; J Moreno-Cruz; R Pindyck; S Rose; I Rudik; J Stock; R S J Tol
Journal:  Science       Date:  2016-04-14       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C.

Authors:  Joeri Rogelj; Michel den Elzen; Niklas Höhne; Taryn Fransen; Hanna Fekete; Harald Winkler; Roberto Schaeffer; Fu Sha; Keywan Riahi; Malte Meinshausen
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 9.  Social and economic impacts of climate.

Authors:  Tamma A Carleton; Solomon M Hsiang
Journal:  Science       Date:  2016-09-09       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Allowable CO2 emissions based on regional and impact-related climate targets.

Authors:  Sonia I Seneviratne; Markus G Donat; Andy J Pitman; Reto Knutti; Robert L Wilby
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-01-20       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  17 in total

1.  In praise of Green Impact for Health.

Authors:  Patrick Hart
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  The cost of a warming climate.

Authors:  Wolfram Schlenker; Maximilian Auffhammer
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Estimation of abatement potentials and costs of air pollution emissions in China.

Authors:  Fenfen Zhang; Jia Xing; Yang Zhou; Shuxiao Wang; Bin Zhao; Haotian Zheng; Xiao Zhao; Huanzhen Chang; Carey Jang; Yun Zhu; Jiming Hao
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2020-01-18       Impact factor: 6.789

4.  Risk of a feedback loop between climatic warming and human mobility.

Authors:  Nick Obradovich; Iyad Rahwan
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2019-09-11       Impact factor: 4.118

5.  Amplification of future energy demand growth due to climate change.

Authors:  Bas J van Ruijven; Enrica De Cian; Ian Sue Wing
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-06-24       Impact factor: 14.919

6.  Global warming has increased global economic inequality.

Authors:  Noah S Diffenbaugh; Marshall Burke
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-04-22       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Climate econometric models indicate solar geoengineering would reduce inter-country income inequality.

Authors:  Anthony R Harding; Katharine Ricke; Daniel Heyen; Douglas G MacMartin; Juan Moreno-Cruz
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-01-13       Impact factor: 14.919

8.  Paris Climate Agreement passes the cost-benefit test.

Authors:  Nicole Glanemann; Sven N Willner; Anders Levermann
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 14.919

9.  The climate commons dilemma: how can humanity solve the commons dilemma for the global climate commons?

Authors:  Yang Li; David K Sewell; Saam Saber; Daniel B Shank; Yoshihisa Kashima
Journal:  Clim Change       Date:  2021-01-16       Impact factor: 4.743

Review 10.  Mapping the co-benefits of climate change action to issues of public concern in the UK: a narrative review.

Authors:  Neil Jennings; Daniela Fecht; Sara De Matteis
Journal:  Lancet Planet Health       Date:  2020-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.