Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday August 26 2019, @06:05AM   Printer-friendly

Prevailing economic research anticipates the burden of climate change falling on hot or poor nations. Some predict that cooler or wealthier economies will be unaffected or even see benefits from higher temperatures.

However, a new study co-authored by researchers from the University of Cambridge suggests that virtually all countries—whether rich or poor, hot or cold—will suffer economically by 2100 if the current trajectory of carbon emissions is maintained.

In fact, the research published today by the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that—on average—richer, colder countries would lose as much income to climate change as poorer, hotter nations.

Under a "business as usual" emissions scenario, average global temperatures are projected to rise over four degrees Celsius by the end of the century. This would cause the United States to lose 10.5% of its GDP by 2100—a substantial economic hit, say researchers.

Canada, which some claim will benefit economically from temperature increase, would lose over 13% of its income by 2100. The research shows that keeping to the Paris Agreement limits the losses of both North American nations to under 2% of GDP.

Researchers say that 7% of global GDP is likely to vanish by the end of the century unless "action is taken". Japan, India and New Zealand lose 10% of their income. Switzerland is likely to have an economy that is 12% smaller by 2100. Russia would be shorn of 9% of its GDP, with the UK down by 4%.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Bill Dimm on Monday August 26 2019, @08:25PM (2 children)

    by Bill Dimm (940) on Monday August 26 2019, @08:25PM (#885791)

    GDP lowered by 10.5% over 80 years? So a reduction in GDP growth of about 0.1% per year (e.g., 2.9% per year growth instead of 3.0% per year)? Am I not understanding what the numbers mean, or is their idea of "a substantial economic hit" kind of a joke?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 26 2019, @08:59PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 26 2019, @08:59PM (#885803)

    My reading is GDP(2100)=0.9*GDP(2019).

    It probably has to do with historical trends, in the last 80 years GDP has probably increased 10 times or so.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Bill Dimm on Monday August 26 2019, @09:13PM

      by Bill Dimm (940) on Monday August 26 2019, @09:13PM (#885810)

      That would be catastrophic, but I don't think that's what it means. I think they mean (which is what I based my earlier post on):

      GPD(2100 | without Paris Agreement) = 0.9 * GDP(2100 | with Paris Agreement)

      I'm basing that on this sentence from the article: They then modelled the income effects under a continuation of business-as-usual emissions as well as a scenario in which the world "gets its act together" and holds to the Paris Agreement.