Try our new AI-powered search
beta
When William Nordhaus, who would later win a Nobel prize in economics, modelled the interaction between the economy and the atmosphere he represented the “damage function”—an estimate of harm done by an extra unit of warming—as a wiggly line. So little was known about the costs of climate change that he called it “terra incognita”, unknown land, compared with the “terra infirma”, shaky ground, of the costs of preventing it. Eventually, a rough calculation gave him an estimate that 1-2% of global GDP would be lost from a 3°C rise in temperature. This was no more than an “informed hunch”, he wrote in 1991.
A new working paper puts the damage far higher. Diego Känzig of Northwestern University and Adrien Bilal of Harvard University use past changes in temperatures caused by volcanic eruptions, as well as El Niño, a years-long increase in heat released by the Pacific Ocean, to model the impact of a warmer planet. Employing long-term data on global economic growth and average annual temperature, they find that an additional 1°C of warming will lead to a 12% fall in GDP. A climate-change scenario with more than 3°C of warming would be, according to their estimates, an equivalent blow to fighting a permanent war.
This article appeared in the Finance & economics section of the print edition under the headline “Mindmelting problems”
Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents
Poker provides investors with helpful guidance
Auction houses are on a lending spree
What China’s leader may learn from a pair of reform-minded academics
Published since September 1843 to take part in “a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress.”
To enhance your experience and ensure our website runs smoothly, we use cookies and similar technologies.
Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2024. All rights reserved.