Recent discussions on Low-Energy Fridays have highlighted the uncertainty in estimating the economic damages of climate change. The key challenge for policymakers is balancing varied cost projections without comprehensive analysis.
This article is a summary. Please read the original article by Philip Rosetti on the RStreet think tank website, here
The most significant factor in these estimates is projected mortality rates from climate change. Higher damage predictions often correlate with increased mortality, while optimistic forecasts show lesser impacts. This was exemplified in the 2018 National Climate Assessment (NCA), which initially indicated a potential 10 percent GDP loss for the U.S. due to climate-related deaths, a claim later clarified as a worst-case scenario.
The accuracy of weather-related mortality projections is contentious. Some argue that climate change might reduce overall deaths by decreasing cold-weather fatalities. However, other analyses, considering factors like the “wet-bulb temperature,” suggest underestimation of heat-related deaths.
Moderate damage estimates, such as those from the Congressional Budget Office, often focus on specific impacts like property damage, omitting broader effects of climate change.
The diversity in these projections leads to a range of predicted climate change costs. Policymakers are advised to view climate change as an ongoing risk and prioritize cost-effective, high-impact emission reduction policies over those justified by uncertain damage estimates. The emphasis should be on implementing effective strategies to mitigate climate risks.
