Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

Climate Crisis Could Trim 10.5 Percent of GDP in 80 Years, Says New Study

Politics
Climate Crisis Could Trim 10.5 Percent of GDP in 80 Years, Says New Study

Statue of liberty under attack illustration. Global warming, democracy and crisis concept.

TeamDAF / Getty Images Plus

The climate crisis is getting costly. Some of the world's largest companies expect to take over one trillion in losses due to climate change. Insurers are increasingly jittery and the world's largest firm has warned that the cost of premiums may soon be unaffordable for most people. Historic flooding has wiped out farmers in the Midwest.


Now, a new report, warns that the climate crisis will trigger massive global economic losses if greenhouse gas emissions are not drastically curtailed within the next few decades, as the Washington Post reported.

The working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that no country in the world will be spared from the effects of the climate crisis and not a single country will see an economic benefit from it.

The study looked at 174 countries over 54 years and found that economic output is negatively effective by persistent changes. If global warming goes unchecked, the constant changes will reduce the world's gross domestic product (GDP) 7.2 percent by the year 2100. However, if the world were to adhere to the Paris climate agreement and keep temperatures from rising too much, the economic loss would be down to 1.07 percent by 2100.

The worst-off nations will be tropical countries short on economic and medical resources.

Industrialized nations will be hit hard if temperatures continue to rise at their current rate and are four degrees Celsius higher than preindustrial times by 2100, as they are predicted to be, the U.S. will lose 10.5 percent of its GDP.

"What our study suggests is that climate change is costly for all countries under the business as usual scenario (no matter whether they are hot or cold, rich or poor), and the United States will be one of the countries that will suffer the most (reflecting sharp increases in U.S. average temperatures by 2100)," said study co-author Kamiar Mohaddes, an economist at the University of Cambridge in the UK, via email to the Washington Post.

While Republicans have said the U.S. can innovate and manage its way around the climate crisis, the researchers were not convinced. They did not see any historical precedent that suggests a speedy adaptation will mitigate economic losses."

Overall, while climate change adaptation could reduce these negative long-run growth effects, it is highly unlikely to offset them entirely," the report said, which Politico reported. "The evidence appears to suggest that (at least for now) adaptation has had limited impact in dampening the negative effects of climate change in the United States."

Japan, India and New Zealand will lose 10 per cent of their income, the researchers said. And Canada would lose over 13 per cent of its income by 2100, as LiveMint reported.

"Canada is warming up twice as fast as rest of the world. There are risks to its physical infrastructure, coastal and northern communities, human health and wellness, ecosystems and fisheries -- all of which has a cost," said Mohaddes, as LiveMint reported.

"The UK recently had its hottest day on record. Train tracks buckled, roads melted, and thousands were stranded because it was out of the norm. Such events take an economic toll, and will only become more frequent and severe without policies to address the threats of climate change."

With restaurants and supermarkets becoming less viable options during the pandemic, there has been a growth in demand and supply of local food. Baker County Tourism Travel Baker County / Flickr

By Robin Scher

Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.

Read More Show Less

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.

Read More Show Less

Trending

A technician inspects a bitcoin mining operation at Bitfarms in Saint Hyacinthe, Quebec on March 19, 2018. LARS HAGBERG / AFP via Getty Images

As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.

Read More Show Less
OR-93 traveled hundreds of miles from Oregon to California. Austin Smith Jr. / Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs / California Department of Fish and Wildlife

An Oregon-born wolf named OR-93 has sparked conservation hopes with a historic journey into California.

Read More Show Less
A plume of exhaust extends from the Mitchell Power Station, a coal-fired power plant built along the Monongahela River, 20 miles southwest of Pittsburgh, on Sept. 24, 2013 in New Eagle, Pennsylvania. The plant, owned by FirstEnergy, was retired the following month. Jeff Swensen / Getty Images

By David Drake and Jeffrey York

The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.

The Big Idea

People often point to plunging natural gas prices as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, new research shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.

Read More Show Less