The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Groundbreaking Study Shows Limiting Warming to 1.5 Degrees Is Good for the Economy, Too
When politicians refuse to take action on climate change, they often use the economy as an excuse. President Donald Trump, for example, justified his decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris agreement in economic terms.
"The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers—who I love—and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production," he said in his official statement.
But a Stanford University study published in Nature Wednesday blows that thinking out of the rising water. The study, one of the first to assess the economic benefits of honoring the Paris agreement, found that there was a 60 percent chance that the global economy would benefit to the tune of more than $20 trillion by meeting the more ambitious Paris target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, compared to allowing temperatures to rise a full two degrees.
The study found there was a more than 75 percent chance that a 1.5 degree world would economically benefit 71 percent of the world's countries containing 90 percent of the world's population. This included the world's largest economies of China, Japan and the U.S.
"For most countries in the world, including the U.S., we find strong evidence that the benefits of achieving the ambitious Paris targets are likely to vastly outweigh the costs," lead study author Marshall Burke said in a Stanford University press release.
According to the release, the costs of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius have been estimated to be 30 times less than the benefits calculated by the study.
The economies of poorer countries will especially benefit.
"The low-latitude countries, which are already warm and already poor, in many cases, are highly likely to benefit from lower levels of warming because of the fact that they're highly likely to incur damages for higher levels of warming," study co-author Noah Diffenbaugh told The Los Angeles Times.
The only countries that would be economically disadvantaged by a 1.5 degree warmer world compared to a two degree warmer world were Russia, Canada, the Nordic and Baltic countries and Eastern Europe, AFP reported.
To achieve their results, researchers examined how economic performance changed according to temperature fluctuations in the past half-century. They then used climate models to assess how economic output would change after 1.5 degrees of warming, the most ambitious Paris target, two degrees of warming, the maximum Paris target, 2.5 to three degrees of warming, which is what global temperatures are calculated to reach if participating countries do not up their current Paris commitments, and four degrees of warming.
They found that a 2.5 to three degree warmer world would lead to a per capita decrease in economic output of 15 to 25 percent and that a four degree warmer world would reduce per capita economic output by more than 30 percent.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Governors in Vermont and Maine signed bills on Monday that will ban plastic bags in their states next year, The Hill reported.
The Maine ban will go into effect next Earth Day, April 22, 2020. The Vermont ban, which extends beyond plastic bags and is the most comprehensive plastics ban so far, will go into effect in July 2020. The wait time is designed to give businesses time to adjust to the ban.
By Molly Taft
Lisa Marshall isn't your typical activist. For one thing, she's not into crowds. "I don't really like rallies," Marshall, a mom of three from upstate New York, said. "They're a little stressful — not my favorite thing."
Total Ban on Fracking Urged by Health Experts: 1,500 Studies Showed 'Damning' Evidence of Threats to Public Health, Climate
By Jake Johnson
A comprehensive analysis of nearly 1,500 scientific studies, government reports, and media stories on the consequences of fracking released Wednesday found that the evidence overwhelmingly shows the drilling method poses a profound threat to public health and the climate.
By Grace Francese
A new Environmental Working Group (EWG) study published in Environmental Research found that nitrate, one of the most common contaminants of drinking water, may cause up to 12,594 cases of cancer per year, but that's not its only danger: It can pose unique health risks to children.
Former coal lobbyist and Trump-appointed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler signed a rule Wednesday that officially replaces the Obama-era Clean Power Plan with a new regulation that Wheeler said could lead to the opening of more coal plants, the Associated Press reported.