World leaders are gathering in Dubai for another climate conference, which will no doubt yield heady promises along the lines of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement to keep the global temperature’s rise “well below” two degrees Celsius and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees.
But they’d be wiser not to. [emphasis, links added]
New research shows how extravagant climate promises are far more wasteful than useful.
A new special issue of the journal Climate Change Economics contains two groundbreaking economic analyses of policies to hold global temperatures to 1.5 degrees and its practical political interpretation, mandates to reach net zero, usually by 2050.
Though more than 130 countries, including most of the globe’s big emitters, have passed or are considering laws mandating net-zero carbon emissions, there’s been no comprehensive cost-benefit evaluation of that policy—until now.
One of the Climate Change Economics papers is authored by Richard Tol, one of the world’s most-cited climate economists.
He calculates the benefits of climate policy using a meta-analysis of 39 papers with 61 published estimates of total climate change damage in economic terms.
Across all this, Mr. Tol finds that if the world meets its 1.5-degree promise, it would prevent a less than 0.5% loss in the annual global domestic product by 2050 and a 3.1% loss by 2100.
If that sounds underwhelming, blame one-sided reporting on climate issues.
While headlines tend to focus on stories of violent climate catastrophes and modeled worst-case scenarios, the data reveal a far less frightening picture.
Despite a drumbeat of stories this summer about rising heat deaths, higher temperatures also prevent cold deaths, and so far in much greater numbers.
Globally, the result has been fewer overall temperature-related fatalities. Writ large, the damage the world experiences each year from climate-related disasters is shrinking, both as expressed in fraction of GDP and lives lost.
Climate-related disasters kill ever fewer
— 98.1% less than a century ago
Richer and more resilient societies reduce disaster deaths
This swamps any potential climate signal
Why is this not reported?
Instead, media only delivers climate doomhttps://t.co/YaK8uYrCQk pic.twitter.com/BaMvheeZXO
— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) August 30, 2023
While media coverage tends to hype the benefits of climate policy, it plays down the costs, which Mr. Tol’s analysis shows are substantial.
Based on the latest cost estimates of emission reductions from the United Nations climate panel, he finds that fully delivering on the 1.5-degree Paris promise will cost 4.5% of global GDP each year by midcentury and 5.5% by 2100.
This means that climate policy costs will likely be much higher than the likely benefits for every year throughout this century and into the next. Under any realistic assumptions, the Paris Agreement fails a basic cost-benefit test.
The reality would likely be worse than Mr. Tol’s estimate. He unrealistically assumes governments will implement policies that meet these temperature targets at the lowest possible cost, such as a globally uniform, increasing carbon tax.
In real life, climate policy has been needlessly expensive, with a plethora of inefficient, disconnected measures such as electric vehicle subsidies.
Studies show that the policies being enacted to curb carbon emissions will cost more than twice the theoretical expense Mr. Tol outlines.
This is borne out in the second Climate Change Economics study.
The peer-reviewed paper from MIT economists identifies the costs of holding the temperature rise below 1.5 degrees as well as that of achieving net zero globally by 2050.
The researchers find that these Paris policies would cost 8% to 18% of annual GDP by 2050 and 11% to 13% annually by 2100.
All climate economic models show that moderate policies make sense—initial carbon cuts are cheap and prevent the most damaging temperature rise—but net zero doesn’t.
Averaged across the century, delivering the Paris climate promises would create benefits worth $4.5 trillion (in 2023 dollars) annually.
That’s dramatically smaller than the $27 trillion annual cost that Paris promises would incur, as derived from averaging the three cost estimates from the two Climate Change Economics papers through 2100.
In other words, each dollar spent will avoid less than 17 cents of climate damage. The total, undiscounted loss over the century is beyond $1,800 trillion.
For comparison, the global GDP last year was a little over $100 trillion. Although well-intentioned, current climate policy would end up destroying a sizable fraction of future prosperity. …
Unfortunately for the world, a serious cost-benefit discussion isn’t likely to make the Dubai agenda.
Mr. Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus, a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and author of “Best Things First: The 12 Most Efficient Solutions for the World’s Poorest and our Global SDG Promises.”
Read full post at WSJ
The title of Lomborg’s graph above is misleading. Those deaths are “climate-related” only to the extent that climate is the sum of weather. The deaths resulted from weather events, and there is no evidence that climate change has made such weather events more frequent or more dangerous according to the IPCC.
The same basic flaw in concept is in the developing nations demand for loss and damage. They are demanding full compensation for all the damages from all extreme weather events. A demand that would be more just would be for extra damaged caused by the impact of climate change. They are too greedy for this. However, such a demand would result in zero compensation if a fair assessment were done. Extreme weather events are not increasing, so there is no increase in damage.
The studies in this article are similar to other studies that I have read over the years. They all show that even if anthropological climate change were real and destructive, the cost to mitigate is far greater than the cost to adapt. A cost benefits analysis a normal thing to do before starting a major project. However, such an analysis does not apply to the climate change movement. That is because the movement is politically motivated, so the results of a cost benefit study are irrelevant.