The world is waking up to the big financial risks of global warming. This story was originally published by Newsweek and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
A European and an American walk into their local bank. Each has a savings account. The banks have the same antiseptic feel, their cash machines make the same robotic moves. There is one fundamental difference between the two, however — how they account for the vulnerability of their assets to climate change. Climate change more catastrophic for the global economy than we thought. When it comes to climate change, the dark truth is that most people couldn’t care less about it crippling the environment.
So instead, let’s talk about something people tend to think about: dollars. A new study, published in Nature on Wednesday, suggests in pretty strong terms that climate change will do some serious wallet damage on a global scale. On average, the authors predict we’ll see a 23 percent reduction in projected global output by 2100 due to climate change (relative to a world without it). Until now, that kind of catastrophic shock to the economy was considered to be more or less a worst-case scenario — but now, it’s looking like it might be par for the course.
“Historically, people have considered a 20 percent decline in global Gross Domestic Product to be a black swan: a low-probability catastrophe,” said co-author Solomon Hsiang of U.C. As is the rule, poorer countries in the Global South are expected to take the hardest hits. Here’s to the blue marble on the right. How much is climate change going to cost us? How much is climate change going to cost us?
How much is it worth to avoid it? How do we figure that out? Well, first we develop models in the physical sciences that show how biophysical systems will react to changing levels of atmospheric gases. Then we feed that data into econometric models, usually Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), to project the economic cost of a given change in temperature. Climate Change: Assessing The Potential Long-Term Effects. El Niño could raise meteorological hell this year. It’s more likely than not that El Niño will rise from the Pacific Ocean this year — and some scientists are warning that it could grow into a bona fide monster.
NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center put out a bulletin Thursday saying there’s a greater than 50 percent chance that El Niño will develop later this year. Australian government meteorologists are even more confident — they said earlier this week that there’s a greater than 70 percent chance that El Niño will develop this summer. Not totally clear on what this El Niño thing even is?
Andrew Freedman explains at Mashable: El Niño and La Niña events refer to fluctuations in air and ocean conditions in the tropical Pacific. There was a particularly brutal El Niño from 1997 to 1998, which killed an estimated 23,000 people and caused tens of billions of dollars worth of damage. Le coût extrême du réchauffement climatique. Le réchauffement climatique pourrait avoir un coût considérable sur les économies des pays du monde entier.
Report: Climate change affecting corporate bottom lines. Climate change isn’t just causing the ice caps to melt; it’s costing corporations big bucks and forcing some to factor its likely impact into their long-term plans.
A new report from the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) released Friday says 63 of America’s S&P 500 companies are already paying to counter the effects of climate change. The past few years of extreme drought, stronger hurricanes and severe flooding have caused immense damage to some businesses’ core assets, requiring millions of dollars in repairs and threatening billions more in future profits. Fossil fuel giants asked to run 'climate stress test' at UN summit. New York ‘climate risk’ meeting will call on oil majors to evaluate size of carbon reserves that are incompatible with warming world (Pic: UN Photo/Evan Schneider) By Ed King The world’s 48 leading fossil fuel companies will be asked to run a ‘climate stress test’ at a summit hosted at UN Headquarters in New York on Wednesday.
Fund managers and investors attending the meeting want oil and gas majors to assess how compatible their assets are with global efforts to avoid dangerous levels of warming. Flood pressure: Climate disasters drown FEMA’s insurance plans. When a hurricane slams into the Jersey Shore, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) gets the call to pick up the pieces.
When a tornado lays waste to an Oklahoma community, guess where the phones start ringing? FEMA. And when a foot and a half of rain falls around Boulder, Colo., sending hundreds of homes into the drink? Yep: FEMA again. But not all FEMA’s shit storms are of the weather variety. “Let me just say, all of the harm that has been caused to thousands of people across the country — [who] are calling us, [who] are going to lose their homes, [who] are placed in this position — is just unconscionable,” Rep. But here’s the thing. Here’s the other thing: While Biggert-Waters contained only passing mention of climate change, it was the first real wake-up call for many coastal residents who had been living with the illusion that, if disaster struck, the federal government would always be there to pick up the pieces.
Biggert-Waters, meanwhile, rolled on. Les chances de limiter le réchauffement climatique diminuent, alerte l'ONU. Berlin - Les chances de contenir le réchauffement climatique à 2°C au cours du siècle diminuent sensiblement, met en garde un nouveau rapport des Nations unies mardi, publié avant la conférence annuelle sur le climat à Varsovie.
"Cet objectif d'une hausse maximum de 2° est de plus en plus hors de portée", a commenté le secrétaire exécutif du Programme des nations unies pour l'environnement (Pnue), l'Allemand Achim Steiner, en présentant ce rapport lors d'une conférence de presse à Berlin. "Le défi auquel nous faisons face n'est pas technique (...), il est politique", a-t-il assuré dans ce texte. Delaying climate action will triple costs.
If the world puts off cooperative efforts to fight climate change until 2030, they will be more than three times as expensive as they would be in 2015.
That’s according to a study led by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, published Wednesday in the journal Environmental Research Letters. A team of researchers modeled the economic impacts of possible international climate agreements and found that if the world starts in 2015 to take the difficult but necessary steps to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, then international economic growth would be crimped by 2 percent. But delaying those steps until 2030 would mean growth is curtailed by about 7 percent. We’re massively underestimating climate costs, experts warn. Crank up global temperatures by 30-odd degrees and humans could plummet toward extinction. Yet one of the world’s most cited economic models on climate-change effects projects just a 50 percent reduction in global economic output if temperatures rise that much.
That’s an example of how substantially we’ve been underestimating the costs of climate change. So argues a new peer-reviewed paper in The Economic Journal written by Nicholas Stern, author the famed 2006 Stern report on the economics of climate change, and Simon Dietz, both of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. And, in part because we’re relying on an outdated economic model, carbon-trading programs are woefully undercharging polluters for their climate-wrecking emissions. The new paper critiques a model developed in the early ’90s — the Dynamic Integrated model of Climate and the Economy, or DICE model – and a related paper, “To slow or not to slow,” by Yale economist William Nordhaus.
Who's Gonna Pay For Global Warming? Climate-related disasters cost American taxpayers $96 billion last year. La bombe à retardement climatique fait trembler Davos. Ce qui restait jusqu'à présent le credo de certains écologistes férus d'économie et de plus rares économistes (dont Joseph Stiglitz ou Nicholas Stern) ouverts aux thèses environnementales, pénètre le saint des saints de l'économie mondiale. Alors que la plupart des acteurs économiques, gouvernements, financiers, chefs d'entreprises et consommateurs confondus prennent prétexte de la crise économique pour repousser les investissements nécessaires au traitement de la crise environnementale, l'étude consacrée aux risques, publiée en amont du sommet de Davos, démontre que cette attitude ne fait qu'aggraver les choses.
Et que c'est précisément de la collision entre les deux crises que pourraient découler les plus grands dangers de ces prochaines années. GlobalRisks_Report_2013.pdf (Objet application/pdf) Insurers Stray From the Conservative Line on Climate Change. Photo If there were one American industry that would be particularly worried about it would have to be , right? From ’s devastating blow to the Northeast to the protracted drought that hit the Midwest Corn Belt, natural catastrophes across the United States pounded insurers last year, generating $35 billion in privately insured property losses, $11 billion more than the average over the last decade. And the industry expects the situation will get worse. “Numerous studies assume a rise in summer drought periods in North America in the future and an increasing probability of severe cyclones relatively far north along the U.S.
East Coast in the long term,” said Peter Höppe, who heads Geo Risks Research at the reinsurance giant Munich Re. “Insurance is heavily dependent on scientific thought,” Frank Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America, told me last week. Yet when I asked Mr. Mr. But the industry’s analysis of the risks it faces is evolving. Mr. Still, Mr. Insurer: Hey, these climate-related disasters are getting expensive.
There is no industry less enthusiastic about climate change than the insurance industry. After all, if something bad happens to a house or a business or a person, it’s the one that has to pay out — and its entire business model is predicated on minimizing how often it has to pay out. More and more floods and fires and derechos and who-knows-what means more and more checks flowing out of corporate headquarters. Not a pleasant prospect. Munich Re is a reinsurance company, a company that insures insurers. Munich Re, then, is on the hook another level up.