I don’t have access to the study (I may find a way to access it later). I’m just surprised by the result.
The most pessimistic pathway without mitigation would result in a net economic impact equivalent to 6.6% (3.9–8.6%) of global GDP at the end of this century.
This impact sounds awfully small. The worst climate causing a decrease of 4% to 8% GDP?
Are these impacts derived from DICE or calculations by Nordhaus, or his peers ? If yes, there are huge methodological flaws in the way this results was obtained (for instance, they only model the impact on GDP for outdoors activites).
I recommend watching this video to understand commons limits of calculations made on GDP impacts.
I really deaths from war should be included, if the war wouldn’t have taken place without climate change (which is of course very hard to evaluate—climate change is one factor that adds pressure but is combined with others).
Neither DICE nor calculations by Nordhaus were used in that study. Here I was not talking about the impact on GDP, but on the expected deaths from undernourishment, fluvial flooding,… (supplementary material figure 3) (These deaths were then used to calculate loss of economic welfare in monetary terms using the value of a statistical life, but that contestable step is not important here.)
Ok, I don’t really have the time to look into this in detail, this just sounds very much like an underestimate (especially as economic predictions usually don’t include tipping points, cascading risks, and include poorly tail risks).
For instance, at −5°C compared to preindustrial during the last ice age, the North of America and Europe (including Canada and Scotland) were under a 3km thick ice sheet. I fear current climate change damage models would count this as a 4% GDP loss.
I don’t have access to the study (I may find a way to access it later). I’m just surprised by the result.
This impact sounds awfully small. The worst climate causing a decrease of 4% to 8% GDP?
Are these impacts derived from DICE or calculations by Nordhaus, or his peers ? If yes, there are huge methodological flaws in the way this results was obtained (for instance, they only model the impact on GDP for outdoors activites).
I recommend watching this video to understand commons limits of calculations made on GDP impacts.
This papers on the topic is also very interesting.
I really deaths from war should be included, if the war wouldn’t have taken place without climate change (which is of course very hard to evaluate—climate change is one factor that adds pressure but is combined with others).
Neither DICE nor calculations by Nordhaus were used in that study. Here I was not talking about the impact on GDP, but on the expected deaths from undernourishment, fluvial flooding,… (supplementary material figure 3) (These deaths were then used to calculate loss of economic welfare in monetary terms using the value of a statistical life, but that contestable step is not important here.)
Ok, I don’t really have the time to look into this in detail, this just sounds very much like an underestimate (especially as economic predictions usually don’t include tipping points, cascading risks, and include poorly tail risks).
For instance, at −5°C compared to preindustrial during the last ice age, the North of America and Europe (including Canada and Scotland) were under a 3km thick ice sheet. I fear current climate change damage models would count this as a 4% GDP loss.