A new study published in scientific journal Nature by scientists at Stanford and the University of California, Berkeley has made waves for its finding that thus far we have dramatically underestimated the damage human-caused climate change will do to the global economy.
By looking at data from 160 countries across the 50-year period from 1960 to 2010, the authors found that an average local temperature of 13oC is economically optimal, particularly for agricultural productivity. That temperature roughly reflects the current climate in many wealthy countries like the US, Japan, France and China.
If regional temperatures are cooler, then warming benefits the local economy, but past that peak temperature, warming reduces economic productivity. The robustness of this result is particularly interesting. The study found that it held true for both rich and poor countries, and that the relationship held for both the 1960-1989 and 1990-2010 time frames.
To date, economists had believed that global warming would not impact economic growth in wealthy countries, because it was assumed they would have the resources to adapt to a changing climate.
However, looking at data over the past half-century, the authors found that wealthy countries have been nearly as vulnerable to temperatures warming beyond 13oC as poorer countries.
“We find only weak suggestive evidence that richer populations are less vulnerable to warming, and no evidence that experience with high temperatures or technological advances since 1960 have altered the global response to temperature. This suggests that adaptation to climatic change may be more difficult than previously believed, and that the accumulation of wealth, technology and experience might not substantially mitigate global economic losses during this century,” the authors said.
The study found that if humanity continues on a business-as-usual path of high fossil fuel consumption and carbon pollution, 77 percent of countries will be poorer in 2100 than they would be in a world in which we curb global warming. Some countries (5 percent to 43 percent of the world’s nations) might even be poorer in 2100 than they are today as a result.
The news is not all bad. Some colder countries like Canada and Russia will see economic benefits from global warming. However, most of their trade partners will be experiencing slowed economic growth at the same time.
Moreover, the countries with hot climates — in regions like Africa, Southeast Asia and South America — whose economic productivity will take a particularly hard hit from further global warming tend to already be poor. This reinforces the unfortunate reality that poorer countries, which contribute the least to the problem, are the most vulnerable to the consequences of climate change.
Integrated assessment models (IAM), which combine climate and economic modeling, are the best tools for estimating the economic impacts of climate change. However, these models essentially assume that economic growth will continue regardless of climate change.
A study published earlier this year by Stanford economists Frances Moore and Delavane Diaz concluded that continued global warming will significantly slow economic growth in poorer countries.
Their paper concluded that the “social cost of carbon” — the US dollar amount that carbon pollution costs through climate damages — is between about US$70 and US$400, with a best estimate of more than US$200 per tonne. This is a higher cost than IAMs currently yield, with best estimates generally at US$100 per ton or less.
Marshall Burke, lead author of this new study, said that his team is still working out how their results will impact estimates of the social cost of carbon. However, because their study finds that continued global warming will hurt economic growth in both poor and wealthy countries, Burke believes that it will yield an even higher social cost of carbon estimate than in the Moore and Diaz study.
As their paper notes, they are also likely underestimating the economic costs of climate change by focusing on temperature impacts, excluding other factors like sea level rise.
“The slope of the damage function is large, even for slight warming, generating expected costs of climate change 2.5 to 100 times larger than prior estimates for 2oC warming, and at least 2.5 times larger for higher temperatures. Notably, our estimates are based only on temperature effects (or effects for which historical temperature has been a proxy), and so do not include other potential sources of economic loss associated with climate change, such as tropical cyclones or sea-level rise,” they said.
“[Economists] have significantly underestimated the potential for very negative climate impacts on the global economy. It is just really hard to see how the damage functions in the IAMs are consistent with historical experience,” Burke said.
Basic economics suggests that markets should include a price on carbon pollution that reflects our best estimates of the social cost of carbon.
Carbon pollution creates costs that societies pay via climate damages and reduced economic productivity, but if the market does not reflect those costs, consumers cannot make informed purchasing decisions. Economists call this an “externality” and a “market failure,” which Economics 101 says should be remedied by putting a price on carbon pollution.
Crucially, this is a point on which even contrarian economists agree. There is a consensus among economists that there should be a price on carbon pollution.
One economist, who is an adviser to the anti-climate policy Global Warming Policy Foundation, in a recent working paper said: “The optimal carbon tax in the near term is somewhere between a few tens and a few hundreds of dollars per tonne of carbon.”
Even chief executives of many of the world’s biggest oil companies have called for a global carbon pollution pricing system. Exxon Mobil, the world’s largest oil company and the second-most profitable company in the world, has explicitly called for a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
As this new study shows, the economic impacts of global warming are likely even bigger than previously realized, and the need for carbon pollution pricing even greater.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing