Cost estimates vary widely. A recent study found that maintaining warming at 2 degrees Celsius would require a total investment of between $ 4 trillion and $ 60 trillion, with a median estimate of $ 16 trillion, while maintaining warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius could cost between $ 10 trillion and $ 100 trillion, with an average estimate of $ 30 billion. (For reference, the entire global economy was approximately $ 88 billion in 2019.) Other studies have found that achieving zero net will require annual investment ranging from less than 1.5 percent of global gross domestic product to 4 percent. It is a lot, but within the historical investments in energy in countries like the USA
Now, let’s consider the costs of uncontrolled climate change, which will fall the hardest on the most vulnerable. These include damage to property and infrastructure due to rising sea levels and extreme weather conditions, death and disease related to natural disasters, pollution and infectious diseases, reduced agricultural production and lost labor productivity due to rising temperatures, declining water availability. and increased energy costs of species extinction and habitat destruction. Dr. Hsiang, an economist at UC Berkeley, describes it as “death with a thousand cuts.”
As a result, climate damage is difficult to quantify. Moody’s Analytics estimates that even 2 degrees Celsius heating will cost the world $ 69 trillion by 2100, and economists expect the tax to continue to rise with temperature. In a recent survey, economists estimated that the cost would be equal to 5% of global GDP at 3 degrees Celsius (our trajectory according to current policies) and 10% for 5 degrees Celsius. Other research indicates that if current warming trends continue, global GDP per capita will fall by 7 to 23 percent by the end of the century – an economic blow equivalent to multiple coronavirus pandemics each year. And some fear that these are vast underestimations.
Already, studies suggest that climate change has reduced incomes in the poorest countries by up to 30 percent and reduced global agricultural productivity by 21 percent since 1961. Extreme weather events have also brought a large bill. In 2020, the United States alone, climate-related disasters such as hurricanes, droughts and fires, caused nearly $ 100 billion in damage to businesses, property and infrastructure, compared to an average of $ 18 billion a year in 1980s.
Given the high price of inaction, many economists say tackling climate change is a better deal. It’s like the old saying: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In this case, limiting warming will significantly reduce future damage and inequality caused by climate change. It will also produce so-called co-benefits, such as saving a million lives each year by reducing air pollution and millions from consuming healthier, climate-friendly diets. Some studies have even found that meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement could create jobs and increase global GDP, and of course climate change control will save many species and ecosystems that humans depend on – and that many people believe they have. their own innate value.
The challenge is that we need to reduce emissions now to avoid further damage, which requires large investments over the next few decades. And the longer we postpone, the more we will pay to meet the Paris goals. A recent analysis found that reaching zero-net by 2050 would cost the US almost twice as much if we waited until 2030 instead of acting now. But even if we want the Paris goal, the economy is still a strong argument for climate action, because each additional degree of warming will cost us more – in dollars and in lives.
Back up.
Veronica Penney contributed to the reporting.
Photos illustrated by Esther Horvath, Max Whittaker, David Maurice Smith and Talia Herman for The New York Times; Esther Horvath / Alfred-Wegener-Institut