Suchergebnisse

There is an increasing interest in the economics of climate change, and the marginal damage costs of emissions, known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). In 2002, the UK Government recommended an SCC for policy appraisal. A recent review of this SCC was commissioned and summarised in this paper. The authors conclude that SCC estimates span at least three orders of magnitude, reflecting uncertainties in climate change and choices of key parameters/variables (discount rate, equity weighting and risk aversion). Estimates also vary due to their coverage, and a risk matrix was developed to compare climate change effects (predictable to major events) against impacts (market, non-market and socially contingent). From several lines of evidence, the current lower SCC value is considered a reasonable lower benchmark for a global decision committed to reducing the threat of dangerous climate change. An upper benchmark was more difficult to deduce, though the risk of high values was considered significant. It is currently impossible to provide a central value with confidence. The study also reviewed the use of the SCC in policy, from project appraisal to long-term climate policy, and used stakeholder interviews to elicit views. A wide diversity of responses was found: whilst most considered some values are needed for policy appraisal, nearly all had reservations for long-term policy. From this, the authors propose a two tier approach. The economic benefits of climate change should be considered when setting long-term policy, but a wider framework is needed (i.e. than cost-benefit analysis). This should include a disaggregated analysis of economic winners and losers by region and sector, and key impact indicators such as health and ecosystems. It should also consider the full risk matrix (i.e. non-marginal/irreversible effects). Once long-term policy is set, shadow prices for appraisal across Government are useful, provided they are consistent with the long-term goal, and are applied consistently.

Abstract This paper seeks to demonstrate that the value of climate projection information can be used to derive quantitative estimates of both the costs and benefits of information-based measures introduced to reduce climate-related risks. Specifically, information relating to both longer term climate change and weather variability are combined to identify potential resource implications for health service planning when faced with higher frequencies of heatwaves. A range of climate projection-city combinations are explored in order to test the robustness of the economic justification for heatwave warning systems (HWWS) in Europe – London, Madrid and Prague. Our results demonstrate that in most cases the HWWS option can be justified in the current climate – it is therefore a "no/low regret" option. Our results also show that whilst costs increase slightly under climate change scenarios, benefits of HWWS are likely to increase more steeply in European contexts. However, whilst the majority of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) outcomes are found to be positive, (i.e. economic benefits are greater than economic costs), across alternative climate projection-city combinations, in sensitivity analyses it is possible to generate negative results in certain geographical contexts. Indeed, with respect to this climate change risk, this analysis has identified that the analysis of key uncertainties, such as effectiveness of HWWSs and the valuation of health improvements, is critical in strengthening the case for HWWS implementation.

Quantitative estimates of the economic damages of climate change usually are based on aggregate relationships linking average temperature change to loss in gross domestic product (GDP). However, there is a clear need for further detail in the regional and sectoral dimensions of impact assessments to design and prioritize adaptation strategies. New developments in regional climate modeling and physical-impact modeling in Europe allow a better exploration of those dimensions. This article quantifies the potential consequences of climate change in Europe in four market impact categories (agriculture, river floods, coastal areas, and tourism) and one nonmarket impact (human health). The methodology integrates a set of coherent, high-resolution climate change projections and physical models into an economic modeling framework. We find that if the climate of the 2080s were to occur today, the annual loss in household welfare in the European Union (EU) resulting from the four market impacts would range between 0.2–1%. If the welfare loss is assumed to be constant over time, climate change may halve the EU's annual welfare growth. Scenarios with warmer temperatures and a higher rise in sea level result in more severe economic damage. However, the results show that there are large variations across European regions. Southern Europe, the British Isles, and Central Europe North appear most sensitive to climate change. Northern Europe, on the other hand, is the only region with net economic benefits, driven mainly by the positive effects on agriculture. Coastal systems, agriculture, and river flooding are the most important of the four market impacts assessed.

Quantitative estimates of the economic damages of climate change usually are based on aggregate relationships linking average temperature change to loss in gross domestic product (GDP). However, there is a clear need for further detail in the regional and sectoral dimensions of impact assessments to design and prioritize adaptation strategies. New developments in regional climate modeling and physical-impact modeling in Europe allow a better exploration of those dimensions. This article quantifies the potential consequences of climate change in Europe in four market impact categories (agriculture, river floods, coastal areas, and tourism) and one nonmarket impact (human health). The methodology integrates a set of coherent, high-resolution climate change projections and physical models into an economic modeling framework. We find that if the climate of the 2080s were to occur today, the annual loss in household welfare in the European Union (EU) resulting from the four market impacts would range between 0.2–1%. If the welfare loss is assumed to be constant over time, climate change may halve the EU's annual welfare growth. Scenarios with warmer temperatures and a higher rise in sea level result in more severe economic damage. However, the results show that there are large variations across European regions. Southern Europe, the British Isles, and Central Europe North appear most sensitive to climate change. Northern Europe, on the other hand, is the only region with net economic benefits, driven mainly by the positive effects on agriculture. Coastal systems, agriculture, and river flooding are the most important of the four market impacts assessed.