Showing posts with label assessment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label assessment. Show all posts

Summary of Recent Reports on the Costs of Climate Action/Inaction

Reports are coming in that make it hard to ignore the economic benefits of action on climate change. This includes recent reports from Citi the world's third largest bank and the London School of Economics, one of the most prestigious and respected schools in the world.

In April 2015 the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Department of Energy published reports that demonstrate just how high the costs of inaction could be.

According to a study by the WHO, the financial costs of air pollution in Europe alone amounts to $1. trillion each year from death and disease. This is one tenth of Europe's gross national product. The economic costs of deaths alone represent $1.4 trillion.

As reported by Bloomberg, a US Energy Department report indicates that in the US, extreme weather costs about $33 billion each year.

According to a Tufts University report commissioned by the NRDC, the costs of climate inaction to the US economy is equivalent to more than $3.8 trillion annually or 3.6 percent of the nation's GDP by 2100.  Hurricane damage, real estate losses, increased energy costs and water costs add up to a price tag of 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100.  Hurricane damages: $422 billion Real estate losses: $360 billion Increased energy costs: $141 billion Water costs: $950 billion.

The NRDC report indicates that if left unchecked global warming will cause drastic changes to the planet’s climate, with average temperature increases of 13 degrees Fahrenheit in most of the United States and 18 degrees Fahrenheit in Alaska over the next 100 years.

As reported in skeptical science, peer-reviewed projections indicate that the costs of inaction on climate change outweigh the costs of addressing the problem by trillions of dollars. 

"The benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions outweigh the costs by trillions of dollars. Combining the results of the report by the German Institute of Economic Research and Watkiss et al. (2005) studies, we find that the total cost of climate action (cost plus damages) by 2100 is approximately $12 trillion, while the cost of inaction (just damages) is approximately $20 trillion."

Image Credit: Skeptical Science

Related
Acting on Climate Change Makes Good Economic Sense According to Citibank
An LSE Cost Benefit Analysis Supports Climate Action
Action on Climate Change a Cost Benefit Analysis
The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change
Climate Change: Frequency, Costs and Mortality (World Meteorological Organisation)
Graphics - Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change
Businesses Feel the Heat from Declining Labor Productivity
Economic Benefits of Combating Climate Change (IIED)
Economic Costs of Combating Climate Change (IPCC)
Reducing Fossil Fuel Use: The Longer We Wait the More it will Cost
Infographic - How Much Would it Cost to Go Green Globally?
Graphic - The Cost of Mitigating Climate Change
The Financial Costs of Biodiversity Loss
Extreme Weather and the Costs of Climate Change
The Costs of Global Warming
The Costs of Climate Change Related Flooding

An LSE Cost Benefit Analysis Supports Climate Action

Research from the London School of Economics (LSE) makes the economic case for acting on climate change. This study along with many others (see related posts below) make the point that the costs of inaction on global warming are far greater than the costs of acting. This is in addition to the costs directly related to the damage caused by climate change.

Much has been said about the costs of combating global warming but a slew of independent research indicates that the benefits of climate action far outweigh the costs. This was also the conclusion of Citibank study published in August.

Two research institutes at the London School of Economics found that there are significant economic gains from limiting emissions. The LSE study published in July says that improved air quality, energy efficiency and energy security combine with falling renewable energy prices to make climate action the more economically compelling option.

The employment and health benefits alone outweigh the costs of climate mitigation even if we do not factor the liabilities associated with the damaging impacts of climate change. In the simplest terms climate action has massive economic benefits while inaction will augur massive costs.

Related
Acting on Climate Change Makes Good Economic Sense According to Citibank
Action on Climate Change a Cost Benefit Analysis
The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change
Climate Change: Frequency, Costs and Mortality (World Meteorological Organization)
Graphics - Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change
Businesses Feel the Heat from Declining Labor Productivity
Economic Benefits of Combating Climate Change (IIED)
Economic Costs of Combating Climate Change (IPCC)
Reducing Fossil Fuel Use: The Longer We Wait the More it will Cost
Infographic - How Much Would it Cost to Go Green Globally?
Graphic - The Cost of Mitigating Climate Change
The Financial Costs of Biodiversity Loss
Extreme Weather and the Costs of Climate Change
The Costs of Global Warming
The Costs of Climate Change Related Flooding

Acting on Climate Change Makes Good Economic Sense According to Citibank

A recent Citibank report showed that if we act to slow climate change we could save as much as $50 trillion. This finding is significant because cost is one of the most common reasons put forth to avoid acting on climate change. The Citi report is but the most recent study to soundly refute the contention that acting on climate change is too expensive. Research shows that climate action offers excellent ROI not to mention saving trillions of dollars of additional costs associated with the damaging affects of a warmer world.

In a report entitled, "Energy Darwinism II: Why a Low Carbon Future Doesn’t Have to Cost the Earth," Citi Global Perspectives & Solutions (GPS), conducted a cost benefit analysis of a low carbon energy economy. The research explored the costs of inaction (business as usual) versus the costs of acting (transitioning to a low-carbon energy economy).

The research shows that the action scenario actually costs less than inaction. Over the next 25 years the cost of a low carbon energy economy would be about $190 trillion while doing nothing would cost around $192 trillion. These figures do not include the $30 - $50 trillion in costs associated with the damage caused by climate change.

Using these numbers Citi concluded that acting on climate change offers excellent ROI (estimated to be around 10 percent by 2035). The Citi report also reiterates the findings of other research which suggest that a carbon tax would be beneficial for the economy.

In addition to avoiding a string of liabilities, acting on climate change also affords massive improvements in people's health and quality of life. Even if we attempt to divorce ourselves from the human toll of climate change, a purely financial assessment reveals that acting on climate change makes good economic sense.

Related
Action on Climate Change a Cost Benefit Analysis
The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change
Climate Change: Frequency, Costs and Mortality (World Meteorological Organisation)
Graphics - Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change
Businesses Feel the Heat from Declining Labor Productivity
Economic Benefits of Combating Climate Change (IIED)
Economic Costs of Combating Climate Change (IPCC)
Reducing Fossil Fuel Use: The Longer We Wait the More it will Cost
Infographic - How Much Would it Cost to Go Green Globally?
Graphic - The Cost of Mitigating Climate Change
The Financial Costs of Biodiversity Loss
Extreme Weather and the Costs of Climate Change
The Costs of Global Warming
The Costs of Climate Change Related Flooding

Carbon Trust Sustainability Certification

Carbon Trust offers certification for organizations in sustainability. This includes energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, water use and waste management. Carbon Trust independently validates and certifies organizational achievements in adopting more sustainable business models.

The certification process acts to identify inefficiencies in resource use and provides a framework for improving management processes. The Carbon Trust Standard helps organizations to measure, manage and reduce their environmental impact, whilst improving their resource management and operational sustainability.

Carbon Trust certification is designed to reduce costs and enhance corporate reputations. They also help organizations to communicate sustainability achievements with customers, investors and stakeholders.

Certifications are awarded to for best-practice and real achievements in reduction. The Carbon Trust standard and certification offers tangible proof of sustainability to customers, employees, shareholders and suppliers.

There are currently over 1,100 organisations having certified, they have helping create a new business culture whereby corporate sustainability is now an essential part of business management.

Carbon Trust Standard bearers include:

Allianz
AkzoNobel
Allied Bakeries
Anglian Water
Branston Ltd
Bentley Motors
Bupa
Center Parcs
Dept for Energy & Climate Change
Dyson
Eurotunnel
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
Greggs
Marks & Spencer
McLaren
Nationwide
nPower
Ofgem
PriceWaterhouseCoopers
Quorn
Sainsbury’s
Selfridges
Sky
Standard Chartered Bank
The Football Association
Whitbread

Together Certified organisations have saved saved $258 million in energy and operational costs and reduce carbon emissions by over 3.6 million tons of CO2e every year, with an average annual energy cost saving of $503,000.

As reported by Business Green one of the companies to recently earn Carbon Trust Certification is Vegetarian-food supplier Quorn. They succeeded in reducing the carbon footprint of their core mycoprotein ingredient by 15 percent. Improvements to their vegetarian mince products have resulted in a 90 percent lower carbon footprint than its beef equivalent.

They have also invested in energy efficiency initiatives at its Stokesley headquarters, including improved temperature control and thermal insulation. Overall they have reduced their building's carbon emissions by 15 percent.

Kevin Brennan, Quorn chief executive, said "we work hard as a business to ensure we're doing right by the environment. The recent investment in the business has certainly helped to ensure we're doing everything possible to reduce our carbon footprint and we will continue this as we embark on our journey to becoming a $1bn business."

The international impact of the improvements to Quorn's products drew praise from Carbon Trust managing director Darran Messem.

For more information on Carbon Trust Certification click here.

Related Articles
EPA Announces ENERGY STAR Top Certifiers for 2014
Sustainability Reporting: New GRI G4 Guidelines, SASB, AECOM's Engagement Efforts
Future-Fit Business Benchmark for Sustainability Professionals
The "B" Corporation An Emerging Trend in Sustainable Business
Cradle to Cradle: Certifying Products to Create We Want for our Children
Standards are Required to Combat Eco-label and Eco-Certification Libel
Technology Certification
ISO 14020 Series: Three Types of Environmental Certification
Green Lumber Certification Standards
A Model for the World: Interface's Environmental Product Declarations and Standards
Organic Standards: Certified Labels

Sustainability Development Metrics: Indices, Approaches and Frameworks

Sustainability development metrics are aggregate measures that extend the concept of value beyond gross Domestic product (GDP). Commonly referred to as sustainability development indicators (SDI), these are measures of sustainability go beyond the generic concept.

Sustainability indicators, indices and reporting systems are of growing importance in both the public and private sectors. SDIs are seen as useful in a wide range of settings, by a wide range of actors this includes international and intergovernmental bodies; national governments and government departments; economic sectors; administrators of geographic or ecological regions; communities; nongovernmental organizations; and the private sector.

Here are some of the most prominent indices:

Human Development Index (HDI) of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP);

The Ecological footprint of Global Footprint Network

The Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI)

Environmental Performance Index (EPI) reported under the World Economic Forum (WEF)

Genuine Progress Index (GPI) calculated at the national or sub-national level.

The Global Reporting Initiative Index

The Energy, Emergy and Sustainability Index (SI)

Environmental Sustainability Index

The Lempert-Nguyen indicator

Here is a listing of different approaches:

The Natural Step approach

The Ecological footprint approach

The Anthropological-cultural approach

The Circles of Sustainability approach

World Business Council for Sustainable Development approach

The Life-cycle assessment approach

Sustainable enterprise approach

Sustainable livelihoods approach

Development sustainability" approaches

Here are some other sustainability metric frameworks:

The International Institute for Sustainable Development sample policy framework

The Sustainability dashboard

UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) types of sustainability

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has identified considerations for technical cooperation that affect three types of sustainability:

Institutional sustainability.
Economic and financial sustainability.
Ecological sustainability.

Some ecologists have emphasized a fourth type of sustainability:

Energetic sustainability.

One ancillary measure that is gaining growing support is the green GDP that would factor the cost of pollution and natural capital depletion.

Related
New Sustainability Metrics from KoAnn Skrzyniarz
e-book - Metrics for Environmental Health and Sustainability
KoAnn Skrzyniarz: A Leader in Sustainable Brand Innovation
White Paper - Redefining Value: The New Metrics of Sustainable Business
Evolving Metrics for Corporate Sustainability: Beyond Waste, Water and Energy
Is Sustainability Still Possible?
Ten Sources of Green Supply Chain Information
PPR Home's Sustainability Journey: Innovative Metrics Shed Light

New Sustainability Metrics from KoAnn Skrzyniarz

Businesses are extending their metrics beyond the measurement of profit to other forms of value of creation. The new sustainability imperatives demands that we include new metrics. In response to both consumers and supply chain pressures businesses are under pressure to provide metrics that measure their sustainability efforts. While these metrics measure more than just profit, they are closely tied to financial performance and creating a competitive advantage.

Here are five new metrics from KoAnn Skrzyniarz. She is the originator of sustainable brands and Sustainable Life Media. She is one of the world's leading innovators in sustainability metrics. She explores ways of measuring new forms of environmental and social value.

Sustainable Life Media measures what they call a “wellbeing economy” -- or "WeFirst" capitalism, an economy whose measures of success would support and encourage rather than impede business innovation that generates broader societal benefit and the creation of shared value.

Such value can be understood as poverty elimination, collaboration, and environmental restoration and maintenance. Their efforts are premised on the goal of finding ways to grow revenues from sustainable activities that decouple growth from impact and deliver shared benefit to society in all sorts of creative ways.

As explored in a Forbes article by Sarah McKinney, Skrzyniarz champions better collaboration, and standardization through the use of key metrics as a way to help companies on their sustainability journeys.

Here are five new metrics:

1. Life Cycle Assessment is a technique used to assess environmental impacts associated with all the stages of a product’s life from-cradle-to-grave (i.e., from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, repair and maintenance, and disposal or recycling).

2. ISO 14000 is a family of standards related to environmental management that exists to help organizations (a) minimize how their operations negatively affect the environment (i.e., cause adverse changes to air, water, or land), (b) comply with applicable laws, regulations, and other environmentally oriented requirements, and (c) continually improve in the above.

3. The Higg Index is an apparel and footwear industry self-assessment standard for assessing environmental and social sustainability throughout the supply chain. Launched in 2012, it was developed by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition.

4. B Corporation Certification is a private certification issued to for-profit companies by B Lab, a United States-based non-profit organization. To be granted and to preserve certification, companies must receive a minimum score on an online assessment for “social and environmental performance”, satisfy the requirement that the company integrate B Lab commitments to stakeholders into company governing documents, and pay an annual fee.

5. STARS is a transparent, self-reporting framework for colleges and universities to measure their sustainability performance, created by the organization AASHE.

Sustainability metrics are still young and we can expect a whole range of new measurements of value going forward. This will include measurements that gauge replenishing our natural resources, supporting the economic stability of local economies and encouraging the health and wellness of society.

Related
Sustainability Development Metrics: Indices, Approaches and Frameworks
e-book - Metrics for Environmental Health and Sustainability
KoAnn Skrzyniarz: A Leader in Sustainable Brand Innovation
White Paper - Redefining Value: The New Metrics of Sustainable Business
Evolving Metrics for Corporate Sustainability: Beyond Waste, Water and Energy
Is Sustainability Still Possible?
Ten Sources of Green Supply Chain Information
PPR Home's Sustainability Journey: Innovative Metrics Shed Light

Event - New Metrics 14 Conference

The fourth annual New Metrics ’14 conference will take place September 24-26 in Boston, Massachusetts. In 2011 Sustainable Brands launched its first “New Metrics” conference, initially partnering with Wharton’s IGEL program to host the conference. This year they are collaborating with MIT’s Sloan School of Business to bring together an audience of 300 brand leaders to be in dialogue with 60+ thought leaders from well-respected brands, NGOs and think tanks who will speak about how they’re working to create a path toward smarter, more accurate and more inclusive business metrics.

As explained by KoAnn Skrzyniarz, "Profit, revenue and margin growth will tell you plenty about the success of your business, but in today’s economy, they won’t provide insight into how business is positioned to operate against the broader trends that are influencing longer-term survival. Updating business models and metrics that enable social, economic and environmental resiliency in the 21st century will ensure the ability to thrive for the long term."

For more information and to register click here.

Related
Sustainability Development Metrics: Indices, Approaches and Frameworks
New Sustainability Metrics from KoAnn Skrzyniarz
e-book - Metrics for Environmental Health and Sustainability
KoAnn Skrzyniarz: A Leader in Sustainable Brand Innovation
White Paper - Redefining Value: The New Metrics of Sustainable Business
Evolving Metrics for Corporate Sustainability: Beyond Waste, Water and Energy
Is Sustainability Still Possible?
Ten Sources of Green Supply Chain Information
PPR Home's Sustainability Journey: Innovative Metrics Shed Light

e-book - Metrics for Environmental Health and Sustainability

Effective operational metrics are an essential part of benchmarking and measuring progress. This e-book helps you to select the appropriate metrics across environment health and safety, sustainability, quality and more. Produced by LNS Research, in conjunction with MESA International, this e-book contains the detailed findings of the five-month, 2013-2014 Manufacturing Metrics that Matter research project.

This information-packed eBook answers many of the questions on business leaders’ minds today, including:

  • Which metrics are being used to best understand operational improvements today? 
  • How does technology support and impact metrics programs and performance? 
  • Which metrics are being utilized as part of role-based dashboards? 
  • What are the best practices I can learn from market leaders?

To download the e-book click here.

Related
Sustainability Development Metrics: Indices, Approaches and Frameworks
New Sustainability Metrics from KoAnn Skrzyniarz
KoAnn Skrzyniarz: A Leader in Sustainable Brand Innovation
White Paper - Redefining Value: The New Metrics of Sustainable Business
Evolving Metrics for Corporate Sustainability: Beyond Waste, Water and Energy
Is Sustainability Still Possible?
Ten Sources of Green Supply Chain Information
PPR Home's Sustainability Journey: Innovative Metrics Shed Light

Graphics - Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change

The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change

In July, the White House released a report that quantifies the cost of inaction on climate change. The 33-page report titled "The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change," was produced by The Council of Economic Advisers. It makes the point that failure to act on climate change comes with a huge price tag for the American economy (at least $150 billion per year).

Increasing temperatures and rising sea levels demand that we act now if we are to minimize the huge expense associated with a warming world. As the White House explains in the introduction to the report:
"The scientific consensus is that these changes, and many others, are largely consequences of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases that have led to a warming of the atmosphere and oceans."
If we continue with business as usual we are on track to exceed the internationally agreed upon upper threshold limit increase of 2 degrees Celsius. Allowing warming to reach 3 degrees Celsius could cause damage amounting to 0.9 percent of global economic output each year. These costs come from deleterious impacts on public health and biodiversity, as well as physical impacts from rising seas and more severe storms, droughts and wildfires.

If the world warms by 4 degrees Celsius the costs will escalate to 1.2 percent of global output. The warmer we get the greater the costs.

Here are four key points contained in the report:

1. Immediate action substantially reduces the cost of achieving climate targets. Taking meaningful steps now sends a signal to the market that reduces long-run costs of meeting the target. Such action will reduce investments in high-carbon infrastructure that is expensive to replace and will spur development of new low- and zero-emissions technologies. For both reasons, the least-cost mitigation path to achieve a given climate target typically starts with a relatively low price of carbon to send these signals to the market, and subsequently increases as new low-carbon technologies are developed and deployed. An analysis of research on the cost of delay for hitting a specified climate target suggests that net mitigation costs increase, on average, by approximately 40 percent for each decade of delay.

2. Climate change stemming from delayed action creates large estimated economic damages. If delayed action causes the mean global temperature increase to stabilize at 3° Celsius above preindustrial levels, instead of 2°, that delay will induce annual additional damages of 0.9 percent of global output. To put this percentage in perspective, 0.9 percent of estimated 2014 U.S. GDP is approximately $150 billion. The next degree increase, from 3° to 4°, would incur greater additional annual costs of 1.2 percent of global output. These costs are not one-time: they are incurred year after year because of the permanent damage caused by additional climate change resulting from the delay.

3. The possibility of abrupt, large-scale, catastrophic changes in our climate increases the need to act. These large-scale events include the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheets and other ice sheets – which would cause large degrees of sea level rise – as well as the release of additional methane through thawing of permafrost, which would accelerate global warming. These and other potential large-scale changes are irreversible on relevant time scales – if an ice sheet melts, it cannot be reconstituted on any societally relevant timescale – and they could potentially have massive global consequences and costs. For many of these events, there is thought to be a “tipping point,” for example a temperature threshold, beyond which the transition to the new state becomes inevitable, but the values or locations of these tipping points are typically unknown.

4. Enacting meaningful change in climate policy is analogous to purchasing climate insurance. Much like other insurance purchased by individuals and businesses, paying mitigation costs now reduces the odds of a large-scale catastrophic change in climate. And, unlike conventional insurance policies, climate policy that serves as climate insurance is an investment that also leads to cleaner air, energy security, and benefits that are difficult to monetize like biological diversity.

Related Articles
Graphics - Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change
Action on Climate Change a Cost Benefit Analysis
Climate Change: Frequency, Costs and Mortality (World Meteorological Organisation)
Businesses Feel the Heat from Declining Labor Productivity
Economic Benefits of Combating Climate Change (IIED)
Economic Costs of Combating Climate Change (IPCC)
Reducing Fossil Fuel Use: The Longer We Wait the More it will Cost
Infographic - How Much Would it Cost to Go Green Globally?
Graphic - The Cost of Mitigating Climate Change
The Financial Costs of Biodiversity Loss
Extreme Weather and the Costs of Climate Change
Extreme Weather
The Costs of Global Warming
The Costs of Climate Change Related Flooding
Graphs - Global Cost of Flooding
The Costs of Flood Damage will Rise Along with Sea Levels
Balken Flooding and the Costs of Climate Change
Tornadoes and Floods Underscore the Costs of Global Warming
Floods in the Philippines Underscore the Deadly Toll from Climate Change
Hurricane Irene and the Staggering Costs of Climate Change
Extreme Weather Makes a Convincing Case for Climate Change

Climate Change: Frequency, Costs and Mortality (World Meteorological Organisation)

Climate change is not some distant event in the future it is affecting us today. This is the finding in a new report from the World Meteorological Organisation, titled Atlas of Mortality and Economic Losses from Weather, Climate and Water Extremes (1970 - 2012). Because of the increasing risks climate change, the world is currently five times as prone to flooding and extreme weather events as it was in the 1970s.

Increasing Frequency

The first decade of the 21st century saw 3,496 natural disasters from floods, storms, droughts and heat waves. That was nearly five times as many disasters as the 743 catastrophes reported during the 1970s – and all of those weather events are influenced by climate change.

Rising Costs

Extreme weather is already costing us vast sums of costs money. The cost of disasters rose to $864bn (£505bn) in the last decade. Disasters were about 5.5 times more expensive by 2010 than they were in the 1970s, and most of that was because of the rising losses due to floods. About half of the $2390.7bn cost of disasters over the last 40 years was due to storms. In the US costs were led hurricane Katrina and super storm Sandy, each accounting for $196.9bn. The five costliest global disasters were US storms.

Growing Death Toll

The biggest death toll comes from storms which accounted for 1.45m of the 1.94m global disaster deaths. Drought is the next big killer. Heat waves are also a growing threat. In the 1970s heat waves didn't even register but by 2010, they were one of the leading causes of deaths from natural disasters. In Russia alone, more than 55,000 people died as a result of heat wave in 2010.

Related Articles
Action on Climate Change a Cost Benefit Analysis
The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change
Graphics - Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change
Businesses Feel the Heat from Declining Labor Productivity
Economic Benefits of Combating Climate Change (IIED)
Economic Costs of Combating Climate Change (IPCC)
Reducing Fossil Fuel Use: The Longer We Wait the More it will Cost
Infographic - How Much Would it Cost to Go Green Globally?
Graphic - The Cost of Mitigating Climate Change
The Financial Costs of Biodiversity Loss
Extreme Weather and the Costs of Climate Change
Extreme Weather
The Costs of Global Warming
The Costs of Climate Change Related Flooding
Graphs - Global Cost of Flooding
The Costs of Flood Damage will Rise Along with Sea Levels
Balken Flooding and the Costs of Climate Change
Tornadoes and Floods Underscore the Costs of Global Warming
Floods in the Philippines Underscore the Deadly Toll from Climate Change
Hurricane Irene and the Staggering Costs of Climate Change
Extreme Weather Makes a Convincing Case for Climate Change

Businesses Feel the Heat from Declining Labor Productivity

There have been several studies that show how a warming planet will decrease labor productivity. Diminished productivity has negative economic implications both for individual companies and the economy as a whole.

A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) study warned that climate change is likely to have a significant negative impact on productivity for the US workforce as a whole.

The NOAA study found the increasingly hot and wet climatic conditions have cut productivity rates by as much as 10 percent since the 1950s. The study also found that labor capacity losses could double by the 2050s.

The observation that a warming world will decrease productivity was reiterated in the recent Risky Business report.

According to a study titled, "The direct impact of climate change on regional labor productivity," lost production and other costs should be expected in a warmer world.

The heat associated with global climate change will have deleterious implications for millions of working people. As explained in the study climate change will decrease labor productivity in most regions. This is particularly true in the absence of mitigation efforts.

The study estimates that by the 2080s, the losses of population-based labor work capacity will range from 11 percent to 27 percent. This will increase costs as more hours will be required to achieve the same output. Additional costs will come from occupational and health interventions against heat exposure. The worst affects are expected to occur in Southeast Asia, Andean and Central America, and the Caribbean.

Hot weather also enables ozone and the formation of fine particulate matter pollution which can travel hundreds of miles. This not only diminishes productivity it contributes to morbidity and mortality.

Related Articles
Action on Climate Change a Cost Benefit Analysis
The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change
Climate Change: Frequency, Costs and Mortality (World Meteorological Organisation)
Graphics - Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change
Economic Benefits of Combating Climate Change (IIED)
Economic Costs of Combating Climate Change (IPCC)
Reducing Fossil Fuel Use: The Longer We Wait the More it will Cost
Infographic - How Much Would it Cost to Go Green Globally?
Graphic - The Cost of Mitigating Climate Change
The Financial Costs of Biodiversity Loss
Extreme Weather and the Costs of Climate Change
Extreme Weather
The Costs of Global Warming
The Costs of Climate Change Related Flooding
Graphs - Global Cost of Flooding
The Costs of Flood Damage will Rise Along with Sea Levels
Balken Flooding and the Costs of Climate Change
Tornadoes and Floods Underscore the Costs of Global Warming
Floods in the Philippines Underscore the Deadly Toll from Climate Change
Hurricane Irene and the Staggering Costs of Climate Change
Extreme Weather Makes a Convincing Case for Climate Change

Acting on Climate Change: A Cost Benefit Analysis

We are getting a much clearer picture of the costs associated with climate change and the benefits of action to combat it.

Economists are increasingly quantifying the risks associated with global warming including the costs associated with extreme weather, declining global food stocks, degraded ecosystems, the loss of biodiversity, flooding, sea level rise, droughts, fires, the collapse of the permafrost sink, ocean acidification, loss of productivity, business disruptions, conflict, and climate refugees.

Worse than we know

The costs of climate change may be far greater than predicted by the standard economic models such as those used by the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change(IPCC). In June of this year, Lord Stern and his colleague, Dr Simon Dietz, published research in The Economic Journal,which warns that the financial damage caused by global warming will be considerably greater than current models predict.

“It is extremely important to understand the severe limitations of standard economic models, such as those cited in the IPCC report, which have made assumptions that simply do not reflect current knowledge about climate change and its ... impacts on the economy,” said Lord Stern.

Extreme weather

As revealed in a 2012 study by insurance giant Munich released just days before Sandy struck, North America had already incurred $1.06 trillion in extreme weather damage since 1980. To put this number in context, that is five times the average loss in prior decades.

As explained in a Ceres report, titled, "Inaction on climate change: the cost to taxpayers," in 2013, Federal and state disaster relief payouts are estimated to have cost every person in the U.S. more than $300. There have been at least 200 weather-related natural catastrophes annually in North America in recent years, compared to an average of around 50 a year in the early 1980s.

Flooding

As reviewed in a Global Warming is Real article, flooding is one of the leading expenses associated with climate change. It is already very expensive and the situation is expected to get far worse. In 2007, the UNFCCC estimated that the annual cost of flooding excluding storm intensity was about $11 billion. New reports indicate that the actual costs are likely to be much higher.

A new Bloomberg report titled "Risky Business: The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States," indicates that as much as $106 billion worth of existing coastal property in the US will fall below sea level by 2050. The oceans could engulf as much as $507 billion worth of property by 2100. World Bank report indicates that the cost of flooding in 2005 was& $6 billion and that figure could increase to at least 1 trillion annually by 2050. According to a PNAS study, storm surges alone could increase costs from the current level of about $10-40 billion per year to up to $100,000 billion per year by the end of century.

Benefits

The benefits of combating climate change could amount to trillions of dollars each year. The International Energy Agency (IEA) says that transitioning to clean energy alone could save us as much as $115 trillion in fuel costs by 2050.

According to a new World Bank report, policies aimed at cutting carbon would proffer tremendous economic benefits in terms of new jobs, increased crop productivity and public health benefits. The study titled, “Climate-Smart Development, uses climate modeling.

The report states that responsible climate policies (transportation, energy and efficiency) in the EU, Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and the U.S. could provide annual GDP growth of between $1.8 trillion and $2.6 trillion by 2030.

This would take us almost one third (30 percent) of the way towards keeping global average temperatures within the internationally agreed upon upper threshold limit of 2°C (3.6°F). Such policies would reduce carbon emissions by 8.5 billion metric tons and save nearly 16 billion kilowatt-hours of energy which is the equivalent to taking 2 billion cars off the road.

According to the IEA report, renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy storage can stave off climate change and provide significant economic benefits. The report titled, “Energy Technology Perspectives.” indicates that these measures could generate net savings of $71 trillion” by 2050. They would also keep global average temperatures within the internationally agreed upon upper threshold limit of 2°C (3.6°F).

Scientists led by Professor Martin Parry (a former co-chair of the IPCC)in a 2013 report published by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) calculated that the benefit of combating climate change amounts to between $615 to $830 trillion.

This is the finding in the IIED report titled, Assessing the costs of adaptation to climate change: a review of the UNFCCC and other recent estimates. It concludes that the costs will be even greater if we factor the full range of climate impacts.

Costs

Over time the costs reported in studies that quantify climate change keep increasing. According to a 2008 study released by the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) and UNEP Finance Initiative, global environmental damage caused by human activity in 2008 represented a monetary value of $ 6.6 trillion, which is equivalent to 11 percent of global GDP. The UNEP Finance Initiative report titled Putting a Price on Global Environmental Damage” estimates that global costs could rise to $28 trillion by 2050.

According to another estimate, the mean annual impacts of climate change in 2060 range from about $1.5 trillion to as large as $20 trillion.

The IIED study indicates that the the cost of climate change could go as high as $1240 trillion with no adaptation. With appropriate adaptation efforts the costs are reduced to about $890 trillion.

Growth

According to the IPCC,keeping temperatures within the internationally agreed upon upper threshold limit of 2°C (3.6°F) would have a negligible impact on growth compared to the powerfully destructive impacts of unchecked climate change.

The third of four IPCC reports released in April indicated that addressing climate change would have a net effect on growth of 0.06 percent per year. According to the IPCC's= Fourth Assessment (AR4) in 2007, the cost of stabilizing carbon pollution at 445 ppm CO2-eq corresponded to “slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points.” This translates to a cost of about one tenth of a penny for each dollar. However, these assessments of the effects on economic growth do not factor the economic benefits of avoiding a climate catastrophe.

The World Bank report suggests that pro-climate policies could add 1.5 percent to GDP growth.

Cost Benefit Analysis

A cost benefit analysis convincingly makes the case for action. A global transition to clean energy would cost $44 trillion but save $115 trillion in avoided fuel costs, the IEA reports.

Extrapolating from the IIED report, a Think Progress article indicates that keeping atmospheric carbon below 450 ppm will cost about $410 trillion ($275 trillion with adaptation). So stabilizing at 450 ppm reduces net present value (NPV) impacts by $615 to $830 trillion. The abatement NPV cost is only $110 trillion which represents a 6-to-1 savings.

Economists are increasingly able to quantify the risks of failing to engage climate change and the benefits of acting now. As reviewed in a New York Times article, even Henry Paulson, secretary of treasury under George Bush, uses a cost benefit analysis to call for immediate action on climate change.

According to one estimate, in the last two years alone, delays in engaging climate change have cost us $8 trillion. A number of economists have made the point abundantly clear, delaying action on climate change is far more costly in the long run. One thing is certain, the longer we wait, the more it will cost.

A plethora of new data puts to rest the claims that the world cannot afford to act on climate change. It would be more accurate to say we cannot afford inaction.

Source: Global Warming is Real

Related Articles
The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change
Climate Change: Frequency, Costs and Mortality (World Meteorological Organisation)
Graphics - Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change
Businesses Feel the Heat from Declining Labor Productivity
Economic Benefits of Combating Climate Change (IIED)
Economic Costs of Combating Climate Change (IPCC)
Reducing Fossil Fuel Use: The Longer We Wait the More it will Cost
Infographic - How Much Would it Cost to Go Green Globally?
Graphic - The Cost of Mitigating Climate Change
The Financial Costs of Biodiversity Loss
Extreme Weather and the Costs of Climate Change
Extreme Weather
The Costs of Global Warming
The Costs of Climate Change Related Flooding
Graphs - Global Cost of Flooding
The Costs of Flood Damage will Rise Along with Sea Levels
Balken Flooding and the Costs of Climate Change
Tornadoes and Floods Underscore the Costs of Global Warming
Floods in the Philippines Underscore the Deadly Toll from Climate Change
Hurricane Irene and the Staggering Costs of Climate Change
Extreme Weather Makes a Convincing Case for Climate Change

Economic Benefits of Combating Climate Change (IIED)

Scientists led by Professor Martin Parry (a former co-chair of the IPCC) in a 2013 report published by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) calculated that the benefit of combating climate change amounts to $615 to $830 trillion.

This is the finding in the IIED report titled, Assessing the costs of adaptation to climate change: a review of the UNFCCC and other recent estimates. It concludes that the costs of costs will be even greater if we factor the full range of climate impacts. According to the study these costs could go as high as $1240 trillion with no adaptation. However, with appropriate adaptation efforts the costs are about $890 trillion.

Related Articles
Action on Climate Change a Cost Benefit Analysis
The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change
Climate Change: Frequency, Costs and Mortality (World Meteorological Organisation)
Graphics - Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change
Businesses Feel the Heat from Declining Labor Productivity
Economic Costs of Combating Climate Change (IPCC)
Reducing Fossil Fuel Use: The Longer We Wait the More it will Cost
Infographic - How Much Would it Cost to Go Green Globally?
Graphic - The Cost of Mitigating Climate Change
The Financial Costs of Biodiversity Loss
Extreme Weather and the Costs of Climate Change
Extreme Weather
The Costs of Global Warming
The Costs of Climate Change Related Flooding
Graphs - Global Cost of Flooding
The Costs of Flood Damage will Rise Along with Sea Levels
Balken Flooding and the Costs of Climate Change
Tornadoes and Floods Underscore the Costs of Global Warming
Floods in the Philippines Underscore the Deadly Toll from Climate Change
Hurricane Irene and the Staggering Costs of Climate Change
Extreme Weather Makes a Convincing Case for Climate Change

Economic Costs of Combating Climate Change (IPCC)

According to the third U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, keeping temperatures within the internationally agreed upon upper threshold limit of 2°C (3.6°F) would have a negligible impact on growth compared to the powerfully destructive impacts of unchecked climate change.

The third of four IPCC reports released in April indicated that addressing climate change would have a net effect on growth of 0.06 percent per year. This cost to economic growth does not factor the economic benefits of avoiding climate catastrophe.

The economic costs of combating Climate Change in IPCC's Fourth Assessment (AR4) in 2007, show that the cost of stabilizing at carbon pollution at 445 ppm CO2-eq corresponded to “slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points.” This means that the cost of addressing climate change amounts to about one tenth of a penny for each dollar.

Related Articles
Action on Climate Change a Cost Benefit Analysis
The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change
Climate Change: Frequency, Costs and Mortality (World Meteorological Organisation)
Graphics - Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change
Businesses Feel the Heat from Declining Labor Productivity
Economic Benefits of Combating Climate Change (IIED)
Reducing Fossil Fuel Use: The Longer We Wait the More it will Cost
Infographic - How Much Would it Cost to Go Green Globally?
Graphic - The Cost of Mitigating Climate Change
The Financial Costs of Biodiversity Loss
Extreme Weather and the Costs of Climate Change
The Costs of Global Warming
The Costs of Climate Change Related Flooding
Graphs - Global Cost of Flooding
The Costs of Flood Damage will Rise Along with Sea Levels
Balken Flooding and the Costs of Climate Change
Tornadoes and Floods Underscore the Costs of Global Warming
Floods in the Philippines Underscore the Deadly Toll from Climate Change
Hurricane Irene and the Staggering Costs of Climate Change
Extreme Weather Makes a Convincing Case for Climate Change