If economic impacts of climate change are proportional to income — that is, the rich feel the effects more than the poor — then NICE's results match RICE's.
Not exact matches
The consequences
of climate change are being felt not only in the environment, but in the entire socio -
economic system and, as seen in the findings
of numerous reports already available, they will
impact first and foremost the poorest and weakest who, even
if they are among the least responsible for global warming, are the most vulnerable because they have limited resources or live in areas at greater risk... Many
of the most vulnerable societies, already facing energy problems, rely upon agriculture, the very sector most likely to suffer from climatic shifts.»
It is estimated, for example, that none
of the [Millennium Development Goals] targets will be met in sub-Saharan Africa
if current trends continue, and this is before account is taken
of the real effects
of the recent crises in food and energy, the rapid increase in
impacts of climate change, and the major implications
of a global
economic slowdown.»
If you have not heard, IPCC was established by the World Meteorological Organization and UNEP to assess scientific, technical and socio -
economic information relevant for the understanding
of climate change, the scientific basis
of risk
of human - induced
climate change, its potential
impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
Whereas,
if left unaddressed, the consequences
of a
changing climate have the potential to adversely
impact all Americans, hitting vulnerable populations hardest, harming productivity in key
economic sectors such as construction, agriculture, and tourism, saddling future generations with costly
economic and environmental burdens, and imposing additional costs on State and Federal budgets that will further add to the long - term fiscal challenges that we face as a Nation;
Likewise
if a number
of species fail to adapt to the rapidly
changing climate, the loss associated with this reduction in biodiversity goes beyond whatever small
economic impact is modeled in these studies.
Sadly, the reality
of Keystone XL has been masked by $ 10s
of millions (
if not $ 100s
of millions)
of propaganda distorting its
economic implications and downplaying its
climate change impacts (in the shadow
of $ billions spent to undermine understanding
of and action on
climate change).
Now they're being used by the new
IMPACT2C project, which is looking to provide new estimates for the
impact and
economic cost
of climate change in Europe
if global warming is limited to the international goal
of no more than 2 degrees Celsius, relative to Western European pre-industrial levels.
On the vital question
of how to approach
climate change, the most influential economist is William Nordhaus whose explicit position is that we should decide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions only
if cost - benefit analysis or an optimisation model concludes that the net benefits to humans are positive, where the relevant effects are essentially
impacts on
economic output (Nordhaus and Yang, 1996).
This rises to nearly 5 per cent
if the
economic benefits
of avoiding
climate change impacts such as coastal flooding or storm damage are taken into account, it said.
A 2003 analysis
of the potential
impact of U.S.
climate change policy
if it were to link greenhouse gas emission growth to a percentage
of economic growth.
«But integrated assessment modelers never model feedback between the amount
of climate change and
economic growth,» write the authors, «and would have an extremely difficult time doing so
if they tried,» given the uncertainty
of climate impacts.
It's clear
if you read the title (and even more clear
if you read the paper — I linked to it above) that the focus
of this document is not how
climate change degrades coral reefs, but what
impact that degradation may have on the people
of the Pacific (including
economic impacts from reduced tourism).