Economic analysis of climate change

Economic analysis of climate change is about using economic tools and models to calculate the magnitude and distribution of damages caused by climate change. It can also give guidance for the best policies for mitigation and adaptation to climate change from an economic perspective. There are many economic models and frameworks. For example, in a cost–benefit analysis, the trade offs between climate change impacts, adaptation, and mitigation are made explicit. For this kind of analysis, integrated assessment models (IAMs) are useful. Those models link main features of society and economy with the biosphere and atmosphere into one modelling framework.^[1] The total economic impacts from climate change are difficult to estimate. In general, they increase the more the global surface temperature increases (see climate change scenarios).^[2] Economic analysis also looks at the economics of climate change mitigation.

Most types of climate change effects are associated with an economic cost.^{[3]: 936–941} Many of the effects have impacts that are linked to market transactions and therefore are directly affect GDP. However, there are also non-market impacts which are harder to translate into economic costs. These include the impacts of climate change on human health, biomes and ecosystem services. Economic analysis of climate change is challenging as climate change is a long-term problem. Furthermore, there is still a lot of uncertainty about the exact impacts of climate change and the associated damages to be expected. Future policy responses and socioeconomic development are also uncertain.

Mitigation costs will vary according to how and when emissions are cut. Early, well-planned action will minimize the costs.^[4] Globally, the benefits of keeping warming under 2 °C exceed the costs.^[5] Cost estimates for mitigation for specific regions depend on the quantity of emissions allowed for that region in future, as well as the timing of interventions.^[6]: 90 Economists estimate the cost of climate change mitigation at between 1% and 2% of GDP.^[7]

Purposes

Economic analysis of climate change is an umbrella term for a range of investigations into the economic costs around the effects of climate change, and for preventing or softening those effects. These investigations can serve any of the following purposes:^[8]: 2495

• estimating the potential global aggregate economic costs of climate change (i.e. global climate damages)
• estimating sectoral or regional economic costs of climate change (e.g. costs to agriculture sector or energy services)
• estimating economic costs of facilitating and implementing climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies (varying with the objectives and the levels of action required); see also economics of climate change mitigation.
• monetising the projected impacts to society per additional metric tonne of carbon emissions (social cost of carbon)
• informing decisions about global climate management strategy (through UN institutions) or policy decisions in some countries

The economic impacts of climate change also include any mitigation (for example, limiting the global average temperature below 2 °C) or adaption (for example, building flood defences) employed by nations or groups of nations, which might infer economic consequences.^[9][10][11] They also take into account that some regions or sectors benefit from low levels of warming, for example through lower energy demand or agricultural advantages in some markets.^{[8]: 2496 [12]: 11}

There are wider policy (and policy coherence) considerations of interest. For example, in some areas, policies designed to mitigate climate change may contribute positively towards other sustainable development objectives, such as abolishing fossil fuel subsidies which would reduce air pollution and thus save lives.^[13][14][15] Direct global fossil fuel subsidies reached $319 billion in 2017, and $5.2 trillion when indirect costs such as air pollution are priced in.^[16] In other areas, the cost of climate change mitigation may divert resources away from other socially and environmentally beneficial investments (the opportunity costs of climate change policy).^[13][14]

Types of economic models

Various economic tools are employed to understand the economic aspects around impacts of climate change, climate change mitigation and adaptation. Several sets of tools or approaches exist. Econometric models (statistical models) are used to integrate the broad impacts of climate change with other economic drivers, to quantify the economic costs and assess the value of climate-related policies, often for a specific sector or region. Structural economic models look at market and non-market impacts affecting the whole economy through its inputs and outputs. Process models simulate physical, chemical and biological processes under climate change, and the economic effects.^[8]: 2495

Process-based models

This section is an excerpt from Integrated assessment modelling § Process-based models.[edit]

 

Annual greenhouse gas emissions in the various NGFS climate scenarios 2022, based on the REMIND-MAgPIE model by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research^[17]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has relied on process-based integrated assessment models to quantify mitigation scenarios.^[18][19] They have been used to explore different pathways for staying within climate policy targets such as the 1.5 °C target agreed upon in the Paris Agreement.^[20] Moreover, these models have underpinned research including energy policy assessment^[21] and simulate the Shared socioeconomic pathways.^[22][23] Notable modelling frameworks include IMAGE,^[24] MESSAGEix,^[25] AIM/GCE,^[26] GCAM,^[27] REMIND-MAgPIE,^[28][29] and WITCH-GLOBIOM.^[30][31] While these scenarios are highly policy-relevant, interpretation of the scenarios should be done with care.^[32]

Non-equilibrium models include^[33] those based on econometric equations and evolutionary economics (such as E3ME),^[34] and agent-based models (such as the agent-based DSK-model).^[35] These models typically do not assume rational and representative agents, nor market equilibrium in the long term.^[33]

Structural models

Computable general equilibrium models

This section is an excerpt from Computable general equilibrium.[edit]

Computable general equilibrium (CGE) models are a class of economic models that use actual economic data to estimate how an economy might react to changes in policy, technology or other external factors. CGE models are also referred to as AGE (applied general equilibrium) models. A CGE model consists of equations describing model variables and a database (usually very detailed) consistent with these model equations. The equations tend to be neoclassical in spirit, often assuming cost-minimizing behaviour by producers, average-cost pricing, and household demands based on optimizing behaviour.

CGE models are useful whenever we wish to estimate the effect of changes in one part of the economy upon the rest. They have been used widely to analyse trade policy. More recently, CGE has been a popular way to estimate the economic effects of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Aggregate cost-benefit models

See also: Integrated assessment modelling § Aggregate cost-benefit models

Integrated assessment models (IAMs) are also used make aggregate estimates of the costs of climate change. These (cost-benefit) models balance the economic implications of mitigation and climate damages to identify the pathway of emissions reductions that will maximize total economic welfare.^[36] In other words, the trade-offs between climate change impacts, adaptation, and mitigation are made explicit. The costs of each policy and the outcomes modelled are converted into monetary estimates.

The models incorporate aspects of the natural, social, and economic sciences in a highly aggregated way. Compared to other climate-economy models (including process-based IAMs), they do not have the structural detail necessary to model interactions with energy systems, land-use etc. and their economic implications.^[36]

Statistical (econometric) methods

See also: Econometric model

A more recent modelling approach uses empirical, statistical methods to investigate how the economy is affected by weather variation.^{[8]: 2495 [37]: 755} This approach can causatively identify effects of temperature, rainfall and other climate variables on agriculture, energy demand, industry and other economic activity. Panel data are used giving weather variation over time and spatial areas, eg. ground station observations or (interpolated) gridded data. These are typically aggregated for economic analysis eg. to investigate effects on national economies.^[37] These studies examine temperature and rainfall, and events such as droughts and windstorms. They show that for example, hot years are linked to lower income growth in poor countries, and low rainfall is linked to reduced incomes in Africa.^[37]: 755 Other econometric studies show that there are negative impacts of hotter temperatures on agricultural output, and on labour productivity in factories, call centres and in outdoor industries such as mining and forestry. The analyses are used to estimate the costs of climate change in the future.

Analytical frameworks

Cost–benefit analysis

See also: Integrated assessment modelling § Aggregate cost-benefit models

Standard cost–benefit analysis (CBA) has been applied to the problem of climate change. In a CBA framework, the negative and positive impacts associated with a given action are converted into monetary estimates.^[38] This is also referred to as a monetized cost–benefit framework. Various types of model can provide information for CBA, including energy-economy-environment models (process models) that study energy systems and their transitions. Some of these models may include a physical model of the climate. Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) structural models investigate effects of policies (including climate policies) on economic growth, trade, employment, and public revenues. However, most CBA analyses are produced using aggregate integrated assessment models. These aggregate-type IAMs are particularly designed for doing CBA of climate change.^{[39]: 428 [40]: 238–239}

The CBA framework requires (1) the valuation of costs and benefits using willingness to pay (WTP) or willingness to accept (WTA) compensation^{[41][42][43][44]} as a measure of value,^[45] and (2) a criterion for accepting or rejecting proposals:^[45]

For (1), in CBA where WTP/WTA is used, climate change impacts are aggregated into a monetary value,^[41] with environmental impacts converted into consumption equivalents,^[46] and risk accounted for using certainty equivalents.^[46][47] Values over time are then discounted to produce their equivalent present values.^[48] The valuation of costs and benefits of climate change can be controversial^{[3]: 936–938} because some climate change impacts are difficult to assign a value to, e.g., ecosystems and human health.^[49][50] It is also impossible to know the preferences of future generations, which affects the valuation of costs and benefits.^[51]: 4 Another difficulty is quantifying the risks of future climate change.^[52]

For (2), the standard criterion is the Kaldor–Hicks^[51]: 3 compensation principle.^[45] According to the compensation principle, so long as those benefiting from a particular project compensate the losers, and there is still something left over, then the result is an unambiguous gain in welfare.^[45] If there are no mechanisms allowing compensation to be paid, then it is necessary to assign weights to particular individuals.^[45] One of the mechanisms for compensation is impossible for this problem: mitigation might benefit future generations at the expense of current generations, but there is no way that future generations can compensate current generations for the costs of mitigation.^[51]: 4 On the other hand, should future generations bear most of the costs of climate change, compensation to them would not be possible.^[53] Another transfer for compensation exists between regions and populations. If, for example, some countries were to benefit from reducing climate change but others lose out, there would be no guarantee that the winners would compensate the losers.^[53]

In a CBA framework, the distribution of benefits from adaptation and mitigation policies are different in terms of damages avoided.^{[54]: 653 [better source needed]} Adaptation activities mainly benefit those who implement them, while mitigation benefits others who may not have made mitigation investments. Mitigation can therefore be viewed as a global public good, while adaptation is either a private good in the case of autonomous adaptation, or a national or regional public good in the case of public sector policies.

The "optimal" levels of mitigation and adaptation are resolved by comparing the marginal costs of action with the marginal benefits of avoided climate change damages.^[54]: 654 A common finding of cost–benefit analysis is that the optimum level of emissions reduction is modest in the near-term, with more stringent abatement in the longer-term.^{[55]: 298 [56]: 20 [57][better source needed]} This approach might lead to a warming of more than 3 °C above the pre-industrial level.^{[58]: 8 [better source needed]}

CBA has several strengths: it offers an internally consistent and global comprehensive analysis of impacts.^[3]: 955 Furthermore, sensitivity analysis allows critical assumptions in CBA analysis to be changed. This can identify areas where the value of information is highest and where additional research might have the highest payoffs.^[59]: 119 However, there are many uncertainties that affect cost–benefit analysis, for example, sector- and country-specific damage functions.^[54]: 654

Damage functions

 

This graph shows estimation confidence intervals from a meta-analysis of researchers as well as by the Stern Review in 2006 (damage costs measured as percent GDP).

Damage functions play an important role in estimating the costs associated with potential damages caused by climate-related hazards. They quantify the relationship between the intensity of the hazard, other factors such as the vulnerability of the system, and the resulting damages. For example, damage functions have been developed for sea level rise, agricultural productivity, or heat effects on labour productivity.^[60] In a CBA framework, damages are monetized to facilitate comparison with the benefits of proposed actions or policies. Sensitivity analysis is conducted to assess the robustness of the results to changes in assumptions and parameters, including those of the damage function.

Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis allows assumptions to be changed in aggregate analysis to see what effect it has on results (Smith et al., 2001:943):^[3]

• Shape of the damage function: This relates impacts to the change in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. There is little information on what the correct shape (e.g., linear or cubic) of this function is. Compared with a linear function, a cubic function shows relatively small damages for small increases in temperature, but more sharply increasing damages at greater temperatures.
• Rate of climate change: This is believed to be an important determinant of impacts, often because it affects the time available for adaptation.
• Discount rate and time horizon: Models used in aggregate studies suggest that the most severe impacts of climate change will occur in the future. Estimated impacts are therefore sensitive to the time horizon (how far a given study projects impacts into the future) and the discount rate (the value assigned to consumption in the future versus consumption today).
• Welfare criteria: Aggregate analysis is particularly sensitive to the weighting (i.e., relative importance) of impacts occurring in different regions and at different times. Studies by Fankhauser et al. (1997) and Azar (1999) found that greater concern over the distribution of impacts lead to more severe predictions of aggregate impacts.
• Uncertainty: Usually assessed through sensitivity analysis, but can also be viewed as a hedging problem. EMF (1997) found that deciding how to hedge depends on society's aversion to climate change risks, and the potential costs of insuring against these risks.

Cost-effectiveness analysis

See also: Economics of climate change mitigation § Decision analysis

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) is preferable to CBA when the benefits of impacts, adaptation and mitigation are difficult to estimate in monetary terms. A CEA can be used to compare different policy options for achieving a well-defined goal.^[40]: 238 This goal (i.e. the benefit) is usually expressed as the amount of GHG emissions reduction in the analysis of mitigation measures. For adaptation measures, there is no single common goal or metric for the economic benefits. Adaptation involves responding to different types of risks in different sectors and local contexts. For example, the goal might be the reduction of land area in hectares at risk to sea level rise.^[61]: 2

CEA involves the costing of each option, and providing a cost per unit of effectiveness. For example, cost per tonne of GHG reduced ($/tCO2). This allows the ranking of policy options. This ranking can help decision-maker to understand which are the most cost-effective options, i.e. those that deliver high benefits for low costs. CEA can be used for minimising net costs for achieving pre-defined policy targets, such as meeting an emissions reduction target for a given sector.^{[40]: 238 [61]: 2–3}

CEA, like CBA, is a type of decision analysis method. Many of these methods work well when different stakeholders work together on a problem to understand and manage risks.^[62]: 2543 For example, by discussing how well certain options might work in the real world. Or by helping in measuring the costs and benefits as part of a CEA.^{[62]: 2566, 2576}

Some authors have focused on a disaggregated analysis of climate change impacts.^{[63]: 23 [64]} "Disaggregated" refers to the choice to assess impacts in a variety of indicators or units, e.g., changes in agricultural yields and loss of biodiversity. By contrast, monetized CBA converts all impacts into a common unit (money), which is used to assess changes in social welfare.

 

Scaling the effect of wealth to the national level: richer (developed) countries emit more CO₂ per person than poorer (developing) countries.^[65] Emissions are roughly proportional to GDP per person, though the rate of increase diminishes with average GDPs/pp of about $10,000.

Scenario-based assessments

Main article: Climate change scenario

The long time scales and uncertainty associated with global warming have led analysts to develop "scenarios" of future environmental, social and economic changes.^[66] These scenarios can help governments understand the potential consequences of their decisions.

The projected temperature in climate change scenarios is subject to scientific uncertainty (e.g., the relationship between concentrations of GHGs and global mean temperature, which is called the climate sensitivity). Projections of future atmospheric concentrations based on emission pathways are also affected by scientific uncertainties, e.g., over how carbon sinks, such as forests, will be affected by future climate change.

One of the economic aspects of climate change is producing scenarios of future economic development. Future economic developments can, for example, affect how vulnerable society is to future climate change,^[67] what the future impacts of climate change might be, as well as the level of future GHG emissions.^[68]

Scenarios are neither "predictions" nor "forecasts" but are stories of possible futures that provide alternate outcomes relevant to a decision-maker or other user.^[62]: 2576 These alternatives usually also include a "baseline" or reference scenario for comparison. "Business-as-usual" scenarios have been developed in which there are no additional policies beyond those currently in place, and socio-economic development is consistent with recent trends. This term is now used less frequently than in the past.^[38]

In scenario analysis, scenarios are developed that are based on differing assumptions of future development patterns.^[66] An example of this are the shared socioeconomic pathways produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These project a wide range of possible future emissions levels.

Scenarios often support sector-specific analysis of the physical effects and economic costs of climate change. Scenarios are used with cost–benefit analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis of climate policies.

Risk management

Main article: Climate risk

Risk management can be used to evaluate policy decisions based a range of criteria or viewpoints, and is not restricted to the results of particular type of analysis, e.g., monetized CBA.^[69]: 42 Another approach is that of uncertainty analysis,^[66] where analysts attempt to estimate the probability of future changes in emission levels.

In a cost–benefit analysis, an acceptable risk means that the benefits of a climate policy outweigh the costs of the policy.^[52] The standard rule used by public and private decision makers is that a risk will be acceptable if the expected net present value is positive.^[52] The expected value is the mean of the distribution of expected outcomes.^[70]: 25 In other words, it is the average expected outcome for a particular decision. This criterion has been justified on the basis that:

• a policy's benefits and costs have known probabilities^[52]
• economic agents (people and organizations) can diversify their own risk through insurance and other markets.^[52]

On the second point, it has been suggested that insurance could be bought against climate change risks.^[52] Policymakers and investors are beginning to recognize the implications of climate change for the financial sector, from both physical risks (damage to property, infrastructure, and land) and transition risk due to changes in policy, technology, and consumer and market behavior. Financial institutions are becoming increasingly aware of the need to incorporate the economics of low carbon emissions into business models.^[71]

In the scientific literature, there is sometimes a focus on "best estimate" or "likely" values of climate sensitivity.^[72] However, from a risk management perspective, values outside of "likely" ranges are relevant, because, though these values are less probable, they could be associated with more severe climate impacts^[73] (the statistical definition of risk = probability of an impact × magnitude of the impact).^[74]: 208

Analysts have also looked at how uncertainty over climate sensitivity affects economic estimates of climate change impacts.^[75] Policy guidance from cost-benefit analysis (CBA) can be extremely divergent depending on the assumptions employed.^[76] Hassler et al use integrated assessment modeling to examine a range of estimates and what happens at extremes.^[77]

Iterative risk management

Two related ways of thinking about the problem of climate change decision-making in the presence of uncertainty are iterative risk management^[78][74] and sequential decision making.^{[79]: 612–614} Considerations in a risk-based approach might include, for example, the potential for low-probability, worst-case climate change impacts.^[80] One of the responses to the uncertainties of global warming is to adopt a strategy of sequential decision making.^[81] Sequential decision making refers to the process in which the decision maker makes consecutive observations of the process before making a final decision.^[82] This strategy recognizes that decisions on global warming need to be made with incomplete information, and that decisions in the near term will have potentially long-term impacts. Governments may use risk management as part of their policy response to global warming.^{[83][74]: 203}

An approach based on sequential decision making recognizes that, over time, decisions related to climate change can be revised in the light of improved information.^[81] This is particularly important with respect to climate change, due to the long-term nature of the problem. A near-term hedging strategy concerned with reducing future climate impacts might favor stringent, near-term emissions reductions.^[79] As stated earlier, carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere, and to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of CO₂, emissions would need to be drastically reduced from their present level. Stringent near-term emissions reductions allow for greater future flexibility with regard to a low stabilization target, e.g., 450 parts per million (ppm) CO₂. To put it differently, stringent near-term emissions abatement can be seen as having an option value in allowing for lower, long-term stabilization targets. This option may be lost if near-term emissions abatement is less stringent.^[84]

On the other hand, a view may be taken that points to the benefits of improved information over time. This may suggest an approach where near-term emissions abatement is more modest.^[85] Another way of viewing the problem is to look at the potential irreversibility of future climate change impacts (e.g., damages to biomes and ecosystems) against the irreversibility of making investments in efforts to reduce emissions.^[81]

Portfolio analysis

An example of a framework that is based on risk management is portfolio analysis. This approach is based on portfolio theory, originally applied in the areas of finance and investment. It has also been applied to the analysis of climate change.^[86][87] The idea is that a reasonable response to uncertainty is to invest in a wide portfolio of options. More specifically, the aim is to minimise the variance and co-variance of the performance of investments in the portfolio. In the case of climate change mitigation, performance is measured by how much GHG emissions reduction is achieved. On the other hand, climate change adaptation acts as insurance against the chance that unfavourable impacts occur.^[88] The performance of adaptation options could either be defined in economic terms, e.g. revenue, or as physical metrics, e.g. the quantity of water conserved.^[86]

It is important to compare alternative portfolios of options across different future climate change scenarios in order to take into account uncertainty in climate impacts, GHG emission trends etc. The options should ideally be diversified to be effective in different scenarios: i.e. some options suited for a no/low climate change scenario, with other options being suited for scenarios with severe climate changes.^[87]

Investment and financial flows

Investment and financial flow (I&FF) studies typically consider how much it might cost to increase the resilience of future investments or financial flows.^[89] They also investigate the potential sources of investment funds and the types of financing entities or actors. Aggregated studies assess the sensitivity of future investments, estimating the risk from climate change and estimating the additional investment needed to increase resilience. More detailed studies undertake investment and financial flow analysis at a sectoral level to provide detailed costing of the additional marginal costs needed for building resilience.^[89]

Costs of impacts of climate change

At the global level (aggregate costs)

Global aggregate costs, or 'climate damages', sum up potential impacts of climate change across market sectors (e.g. including costs to agriculture, energy services and tourism).^[8]: 2495 A 2024 study projected that by 2050 climate change will reduce average global incomes by about 19%, with global annual damages reaching about $38 trillion (in 2005 International dollars ). ^[90] The study also shows that limiting global warming to 2 °C would by 2050 cost about $6 trillion per year; far less than the anticipated annual damages, emphasizing the economic benefits of proactive climate mitigation.^[91][90]

Global estimates are often based on an aggregation of independent sector and/or regional studies and results. Producing comprehensive global economic estimates is challenging. The interactions that need to be modelled are complex. For example, there is uncertainty in how physical and natural systems may respond to climate change. Potential socioeconomic changes, including how human societies might mitigate and adapt to climate change also need consideration.^[8]: 2496 The uncertainty and complexities associated with climate change and have led analysts to develop "scenarios" with which they can explore different possibilities.

Global economic losses due to extreme weather, climate and water events are increasing. Costs have increased sevenfold from the 1970s to the 2010s.^[92]: 16 Direct losses from disasters have averaged above US$330 billion annually between 2015 and 2021.^[93]: 21 Climate change has contributed to the increased probability and magnitude of extreme events. When a vulnerable community is exposed to extreme climate or weather events, disasters can occur. Socio-economic factors have contributed to the observed trend of global disaster losses, such as population growth and increased wealth.^[94] This shows that increased exposure is the most important driver of losses. However, part of these are also due to human-induced climate change. Extreme Event Attribution quantifies how climate change is altering the probability and magnitude of extreme events. On a case-by-case basis, it is feasible to estimate how the magnitude and/or probability of the extreme event has shifted due to climate change. These attributable changes have been identified for many individual extreme heat events and rainfall events.^{[95]: 1611 [96]} Using all available data on attributable changes, one study estimated the global losses to average US$143 billion per year between 2000 and 2019. This includes a statistical loss of life value of 90 billion and economic damages of 53 billion per year.^[96]

Estimates of the economic impacts from climate change in future years are most often measured as percent global GDP change, relative to GDP without additional climate change.^[8]: 2495 The 2022 IPCC report compared the latest estimates of many modelling and meta-analysis studies. It found wide variety in the results. These vary depending on the assumptions used in the IPCC socioeconomic scenarios. The same set of scenarios are used in all of the climate models.

Estimates are found to increase with global average temperature change. The increase is non-linear. Global temperature change projection ranges (corresponding to each cost estimate) are based on IPCC assessment on the physical science in the same report. It finds that with high warming (~4 °C) and low adaptation, annual global GDP might be reduced by 10–23% by 2100 because of climate change. The same assessment finds smaller GDP changes with reductions of 1–8%, assuming assuming low warming, more adaptation, and using different models.^[8]: 2459 These global economic cost estimates do not take into account impacts on social well-being or welfare or distributional effects.^[8]: 2495 Nor do they fully consider climate change adaptation responses.

In 2017, climate change contributed to extreme weather events causing at least $100 billion in damages.^[97] The impact can be seen over a longer time period, where "over the past 20 years, an estimated 500,000 people have died and US$3.5 trillion was lost as a result of extreme weather events".^[9] Increasing temperature will lead to accelerating economic losses.^[98]: 16 A 2017 survey of independent economists looking at the effects of climate change found that future damage estimates range "from 2% to 10% or more of global GDP per year."^[99]

One 2020 study estimated economic losses due to climate change could be between 127 and 616 trillion dollars extra until 2100 with current commitments, compared to 1.5 °C or well below 2 °C compatible action. Failure to implement current commitments raises economic losses to 150–792 trillion dollars until 2100. ^[100]

High emissions scenarios

The total economic impacts from climate change increase for higher temperature changes.^[2] For instance, total damages are estimated to be 90% less if global warming is limited to 1.5 °C compared to 3.66 °C, a warming level chosen to represent no mitigation.^[101] In an Oxford Economics study high emission scenario, a temperature rise of 2 degrees by the year 2050 would reduce global GDP by 2.5–7.5%. By the year 2100 in this case, the temperature would rise by 4 degrees, which could reduce the global GDP by 30% in the worst case.^[102]

One 2018 study found that potential global economic gains if countries implement mitigation strategies to comply with the 2 °C target set at the Paris Agreement are in the vicinity of US$17 trillion per year up to 2100, compared to a very high emission scenario.^[103]

By region

Other studies investigate economic losses by GDP change per country or by per country per capita. Findings show large differences among countries and within countries. The estimated GDP changes in some developing countries are similar to some of the worst country-level losses during historical economic recessions.^[8]: 2459 Economic losses are risks to living standards, which are more likely to be severe in developing countries. Climate change can push more people into extreme poverty or keep people poor, especially through particularly climate-sensitive sectors such as agriculture and fisheries. Climate change may also increase income inequality within countries as well as between them, particularly affecting low-income groups.^[8]: 2461

A 2021 study by the reinsurance company Swiss Re estimated global climate change is likely to reduce global economic output by 11–14%, or as much as $23 trillion annually by 2050, compared with output without climate change. According to this study, the economies of wealthy countries like the US would likely shrink by approximately 7%, while some developing nations would be devastated, losing around 20% or in some cases 40% of their economic output.^[104]

A United States government report in November 2018 raised the possibility of US GDP going down 10% as a result of the warming climate, including huge shifts in geography, demographics and technology.^[105]

By sector

Main articles: Climate change in Africa, Climate change in Asia, Climate change in the Americas, and Climate change in Europe

 

The distribution of warming impacts from emitters has been unequal, with high-income, high-emitting countries benefitting while harming low-income, low-emitting countries.^[106]

A number of economic sectors will be affected by climate change, including the livestock, forestry, and fisheries industries. Other sectors sensitive to climate change include the energy, insurance, tourism and recreation industries.^[8]: 2496

Health and productivity

See also: Effects of climate change on human health

Among the health impacts that have been studied, aggregate costs of heat stress (through loss of work time) have been estimated, as have the costs of malnutrition.^{[107]: 1074–5} However, it is usual for studies to aggregate the number of 'years of life lost' adjusted for years living with disability to measure effects on health.^{[107]: 1060}

In 2019 the International Labour Organization published a report titled: "Working on a warmer planet: The impact of heat stress on labour productivity and decent work", in which it claims that even if the rise in temperature will be limited to 1.5 degree, by the year 2030, Climate Change will cause losses in productivity reaching 2.2% of all the working hours, every year. This is equivalent to 80 million full-time jobs, or 2,400 billion dollars. The sector expected to be most affected is agriculture, which is projected to account for 60% of this loss. The construction sector is also projected to be severely impacted and accounts for 19% of projected losses. Other sectors that are most at risk are environmental goods and services, refuse collection, emergency, repair work, transport, tourism, sports and some forms of industrial work.^[108][109]

It has been estimated that 3.5 million people die prematurely each year from air pollution from fossil fuels.^[110] The health benefits of meeting climate goals substantially outweigh the costs of action.^[111] The health benefits of phasing out fossil fuels measured in money (estimated by economists using the value of life for each country) are substantially more than the cost of achieving the 2 degree C goal of the Paris Agreement.^[112]

 

The amount by which greenhouse gas emissions are reduced is forecast to substantially affect the number of Winter Olympic Game venues that will have reliably cold conditions.^[113]

 

Projected economic impacts of 2 degrees of global warming on Senegal

Agriculture and infrastructure

See also: Effects of climate change on agriculture, Effects of climate change on the water cycle, and Extreme weather

• In the agriculture sector, there are substantial regional differences,^[3]: 938 Poorer countries are more exposed to climatic changes and extreme weather events because of the important role of agriculture and water resources in the economy.^[114]
• With respect to water supply, a literature survey in 2007 predicted that costs would very likely exceed benefits. Predicted costs included the potential need for infrastructure investments to protect against floods and droughts.^[115]: 191
• It was estimated in 2007 that the economic costs of extreme weather events, at large national or large regional scale, would be unlikely to exceed more than a few percent of the total economy in the year of the event, except for possible abrupt changes.^[116]: 377 In smaller locations, particularly developing countries, it was estimated with high confidence that, in the year of the extreme event, short-run damages could amount to more than 25% GDP.
• Roads, airport runways, railway lines and pipelines, (including oil pipelines, sewers, water mains etc.) may require increased maintenance and renewal as they become subject to greater temperature variation and are exposed to weather that they were not designed for.^[117]

Industry

Carbon-intensive industries and investors are expected to experience a significant increase in stranded assets^[118] with a potential ripple affect throughout the world economy.^[10][11]

Costs of climate change mitigation measures

Climate change mitigation consist of human actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to enhance carbon sinks that absorb greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.^{[119]: 2239}

This section is an excerpt from Climate change mitigation § Costs and funding.[edit]

Several factors affect mitigation cost estimates. One is the baseline. This is a reference scenario that the alternative mitigation scenario is compared with. Others are the way costs are modelled, and assumptions about future government policy.^[120]: 622 Cost estimates for mitigation for specific regions depend on the quantity of emissions allowed for that region in future, as well as the timing of interventions.^[121]: 90

Mitigation costs will vary according to how and when emissions are cut. Early, well-planned action will minimize the costs.^[122] Globally, the benefits of keeping warming under 2 °C exceed the costs.^[123]

Economists estimate the cost of climate change mitigation at between 1% and 2% of GDP.^[124] While this is a large sum, it is still far less than the subsidies governments provide to the ailing fossil fuel industry. The International Monetary Fund estimated this at more than $5 trillion per year.^[125][126]

Another estimate says that financial flows for climate mitigation and adaptation are going to be over $800 billion per year. These financial requirements are predicted to exceed $4 trillion per year by 2030.^[127][128]

Globally, limiting warming to 2 °C may result in higher economic benefits than economic costs.^[129]: 300 The economic repercussions of mitigation vary widely across regions and households, depending on policy design and level of international cooperation. Delayed global cooperation increases policy costs across regions, especially in those that are relatively carbon intensive at present. Pathways with uniform carbon values show higher mitigation costs in more carbon-intensive regions, in fossil-fuels exporting regions and in poorer regions. Aggregate quantifications expressed in GDP or monetary terms undervalue the economic effects on households in poorer countries. The actual effects on welfare and well-being are comparatively larger.^[130]

Cost–benefit analysis may be unsuitable for analysing climate change mitigation as a whole. But it is still useful for analysing the difference between a 1.5 °C target and 2 °C.^[124] One way of estimating the cost of reducing emissions is by considering the likely costs of potential technological and output changes. Policymakers can compare the marginal abatement costs of different methods to assess the cost and amount of possible abatement over time. The marginal abatement costs of the various measures will differ by country, by sector, and over time.^[122]

Costs of climate change adaptation measures

This section is an excerpt from Climate finance § Adaptation costs and adaptation financing needs.[edit]

Adaptation costs are the costs of planning, preparing for, facilitating and implementing adaptation.^[131]: 31 Adaptation benefits can be estimated in terms of reduced damages from the effects of climate change. In economic terms, the cost to benefit ratio of adaptation shows that each dollar can deliver large benefits. For example, it is estimated that every US$1 billion invested in adaptation against coastal flooding leads to a US$14 billion reduction in economic damages.^[131]: 52 Investing in more resilient infrastructure in developing countries would provide an average of $4 in benefit for each $1 invested.^[132] In other words, a small percentage increase in investment costs can mitigate the potentially very large disruption to infrastructure costs.

A 2023 study found the overall adaptation costs for all developing countries to be around US$215 billion per year for the period up to 2030. The highest adaptation expenses are for river flood protection, infrastructure and coastal protection. They also found that in most cases, adaptation costs will be significantly higher by 2050.^{[131]: 35–36}

It is difficult to estimate both the costs of adaptation and the adaptation finance needs. The costs of adaptation varies with the objective and the level of adaptation required and what is acceptable as residual, i.e. 'unmanaged' risk.^[131]: 33 Similarly, adaptation finance needs vary depending on the overall adaptation plans for the country, city, or region. It also depends on the assessment methods used. A 2023 study analysed country-level information submitted to the UNFCCC in National Adaptation Plans and Nationally Determined Contributions (85 countries). It estimated global adaptation needs of developing countries annual average to be US$387 billion, for the period up to 2030.^[131]: 31

Both the cost estimates and needs estimates have high uncertainty. Adaptation costs are usually derived from economic modelling analysis (global or sectoral models). Adaptation needs are based on programme and project-level costing.^[131]: 37 These programmes depend on the high level adaptation instrument – such as a plan, policy or strategy. For many developing countries, the implementation of certain actions specified in the plans is conditional on receiving international support. in these countries, a majority (85%) of finance needs are expected to be met from international public climate finance, i.e. funding from developed to developing countries.^[131]: 38 There is less data available for adaptation costs and adaptation finance needs in high income countries. Data show that per capita needs tend to increase with income level, but these countries can also afford to invest more domestically.^[131]: 39

Challenges and debates

Utility of aggregated assessment

There are a number of benefits of using aggregated assessments to measure economic impacts of climate change.^[3]: 954 They allow impacts to be directly compared between different regions and times. Impacts can be compared with other environmental problems and also with the costs of avoiding those impacts. A problem of aggregated analyses is that they often reduce different types of impacts into a small number of indicators. It can be argued that some impacts are not well-suited to this, e.g., the monetization of mortality and loss of species diversity. On the other hand, where there are monetary costs of avoiding impacts, it may not be possible to avoid monetary valuation of those impacts.^[133]: 364

Efficiency and equity

No consensus exists on who should bear the burden of adaptation and mitigation costs.^[70]: 29 Several different arguments have been made over how to spread the costs and benefits of taxes or systems based on emissions trading.

One approach considers the problem from the perspective of who benefits most from the public good. This approach is sensitive to the fact that different preferences exist between different income classes. The public good is viewed in a similar way as a private good, where those who use the public good must pay for it. Some people will benefit more from the public good than others, thus creating inequalities in the absence of benefit taxes. A difficulty with public goods is determining who exactly benefits from the public good, although some estimates of the distribution of the costs and benefits of global warming have been made – see above. Additionally, this approach does not provide guidance as to how the surplus of benefits from climate policy should be shared.

A second approach has been suggested based on economics and the social welfare function. To calculate the social welfare function requires an aggregation of the impacts of climate change policies and climate change itself across all affected individuals. This calculation involves a number of complexities and controversial equity issues.^[42]: 460 For example, the monetization of certain impacts on human health. There is also controversy over the issue of benefits affecting one individual offsetting negative impacts on another.^{[3] : 958} These issues to do with equity and aggregation cannot be fully resolved by economics.^[134]: 87

On a utilitarian basis, which has traditionally been used in welfare economics, an argument can be made for richer countries taking on most of the burdens of mitigation.^[135] However, another result is possible with a different modeling of impacts. If an approach is taken where the interests of poorer people have lower weighting, the result is that there is a much weaker argument in favour of mitigation action in rich countries. Valuing climate change impacts in poorer countries less than domestic climate change impacts (both in terms of policy and the impacts of climate change) would be consistent with observed spending in rich countries on foreign aid^{[136][137]: 229}

A third approach looks at the problem from the perspective of who has contributed most to the problem. Because the industrialized countries have contributed more than two-thirds of the stock of human-induced GHGs in the atmosphere, this approach suggests that they should bear the largest share of the costs. This stock of emissions has been described as an "environmental debt".^[138]: 167 In terms of efficiency, this view is not supported. This is because efficiency requires incentives to be forward-looking, and not retrospective.^[70]: 29 The question of historical responsibility is a matter of ethics. It has been suggested that developed countries could address the issue by making side-payments to developing countries.^[138]: 167

A 2019 modelling study found climate change had contributed towards global economic inequality. Wealthy countries in colder regions had either felt little overall economic impact from climate change, or possibly benefited, whereas poor hotter countries very likely grew less than if global warming had not occurred.^[139] Part of this observation stems from the fact that greenhouse gas emissions come mainly from high-income countries, while low-income countries are affected by it negatively.^[140] So, high-income countries are producing significant amounts of emissions, but the impacts are unequally threatening low-income countries, who do not have access to the resources to recover from such impacts. This further deepens the inequalities within the poor and the rich, hindering sustainability efforts. Impacts of climate change could even push millions of people into poverty.^[141]

Social cost of carbon

This section is an excerpt from Social cost of carbon.[edit]

The social cost of carbon (SCC) is the marginal cost of the impacts caused by emitting one extra tonne of carbon emissions at any point in time.^[142] The purpose of putting a price on a tonne of emitted CO₂ is to aid policymakers or other legislators in evaluating whether a policy designed to curb climate change is justified. The social cost of carbon is a calculation focused on taking corrective measures on climate change which can be deemed a form of market failure.^[143] The only governments which use the SCC are in North America.^[144] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested that a carbon price of $100 per tonne of CO₂ could reduce global GHG emissions by at least half the 2019 level by 2030.^[145]

Because of politics the SCC is different from a carbon price.^[146] According to economic theory, a carbon price should be set equal to the SCC. In reality, carbon tax and carbon emission trading only cover a limited number of countries and sectors, which is vastly below the optimal SCC. The social cost of carbon ranges from −$13 to $2387/tCO₂, while the carbon pricing at present only ranges from $0.50 to $137/tCO₂ in 2022.^[147] From a technological cost perspective, the 2018 IPCC report suggested that limiting global warming below 1.5 °C requires technology costs around $135 to $5500 in 2030 and $245 to $13000/tCO2 in 2050.^[148] This is more than three times higher than for a 2 °C limit.

In 2021, the study "The social cost of carbon dioxide under climate-economy feedbacks and temperature variability" estimated even costs of more than $300/tCO₂.^{[149][failed verification]} A study published in September 2022 in Nature estimated the social cost of carbon (SCC) to be $185 per tonne of CO₂—3.6 times higher than the U.S. government's then-current value of $51 per tonne.^[150]

Insurance and markets

Traditional insurance works by transferring risk to those better able or more willing to bear risk, and also by the pooling of risk.^[70]: 25 Since the risks of climate change are, to some extent, correlated, this reduces the effectiveness of pooling. However, there is reason to believe that different regions will be affected differently by climate change. This suggests that pooling might be effective. Since developing countries appear to be potentially most at risk from the effects of climate change, developed countries could provide insurance against these risks.^[151]

Disease, rising seas, reduced crop yields, and other harms driven by climate change will likely have a major deleterious impact on the economy by 2050 unless the world sharply reduces greenhouse gas emissions in the near term, according to a number of studies, including a study by the Carbon Disclosure Project and a study by insurance giant Swiss Re. The Swiss Re assessment found that annual output by the world economy will be reduced by $23 trillion annually, unless greenhouse gas emissions are adequately mitigated. As a consequence, according to the Swiss Re study, climate change will impact how the insurance industry prices a variety of risks.^{[152][153][154]}

Authors have pointed to several reasons why commercial insurance markets cannot adequately cover risks associated with climate change.^[155]: 72 For example, there is no international market where individuals or countries can insure themselves against losses from climate change or related climate change policies.^{[clarification needed]}

Financial markets for risk

There are several options for how insurance could be used in responding to climate change.^[155]: 72 One response could be to have binding agreements between countries. Countries suffering greater-than-average climate-related losses would be assisted by those suffering less-than-average losses. This would be a type of mutual insurance contract.

These two approaches would allow for a more efficient distribution of climate change risks. They would also allow for different beliefs over future climate outcomes. For example, it has been suggested that these markets might provide an objective test of the honesty of a particular country's beliefs over climate change. Countries^[which?] that honestly believe that climate change presents little risk^{[clarification needed]} would be more prone to hold securities against these risks.

Underestimation of economic impacts

Studies in 2019 suggest that economic damages due to climate change have been underestimated, and may be severe, with the probability of disastrous tail-risk events.^[156][157]

Tipping points are critical thresholds that, when crossed, lead to large, accelerating and often irreversible changes in the climate system. The science of tipping points is complex and there is great uncertainty as to how they might unfold.^[158] Economic analyses often exclude the potential effect of tipping points. A 2018 study noted that the global economic impact is underestimated by a factor of two to eight, when tipping points are excluded from consideration.^[101]

The Stern Review from 2006 for the British Government predicted that world GDP would be reduced by several percent due to climate related costs. However, their calculations may omit ecological effects that are difficult to quantify economically (such as human deaths or loss of biodiversity) or whose economic consequences will manifest slowly.^[159] Therefore, their calculations may be an underestimate. The study has received both criticism and support from other economists (see Stern Review for more information).

Effects of economic growth on emissions

 

The emissions of the richest 1% of the global population account for more than twice the combined share of the poorest 50%. Compliance with the 1.5 °C goal of the Paris Agreement would require the richest 1% to reduce their current emissions by at least a factor of 30, while per-person emissions of the poorest 50% could increase by a factor of about three.^[160]

 

Though total CO₂ emissions (size of pie charts) differ substantially among high-emitting regions, the pattern of higher income classes emitting more than lower income classes is consistent across regions.^[161] The world's top 1% of emitters emit over 1000 times more than the bottom 1%.^[161]

Some have said that economic growth is a key driver of CO₂ emissions.^{[162]: 707 [better source needed][163][contradictory][164][165]} However later (in late 2022) others have said that economic growth no longer means higher emissions.^[166] As the economy expands, demand for energy and energy-intensive goods increases, pushing up CO₂ emissions. On the other hand, economic growth may drive technological change and increase energy efficiency. Economic growth may be associated with specialization in certain economic sectors. If specialization is in energy-intensive sectors, specifically carbon energy sources, then there will be a strong link between economic growth and emissions growth. If specialization is in less energy-intensive sectors, e.g. the services sector, then there might be a weak link between economic growth and emissions growth. A recent study found that in general, there is some degree of flexibility between economic growth and emissions growth.^[167]

Use of degrowth scenarios

See also: Degrowth, Eco-economic decoupling, and Ecological economics

Scientists report that degrowth scenarios, where economic output either "declines" or declines in terms of contemporary economic metrics such as current GDP, have been neglected in considerations of 1.5 °C scenarios reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They find that investigated degrowth scenarios "minimize many key risks for feasibility and sustainability compared to technology-driven pathways" with a core problem of such being feasibility in the context of contemporary decision-making of politics and globalized rebound- and relocation-effects.^[168][169] This is supported by other studies which state that absolute decoupling is highly unlikely to be achieved fast enough to prevent global warming over 1.5 °C or 2 °C, even under optimistic policy conditions.^[170]

See also

• Carbon price
• Ecological economics
• Energy transition
• Environmental economics
• Just transition

References

1. Wang, Zheng; Wu, Jing; Liu, Changxin; Gu, Gaoxiang (2017). Integrated Assessment Models of Climate Change Economics. Singapore: Springer Singapore. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-3945-4. ISBN 9789811039430.
2. IPCC (2014). "Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). IPCC AR5 WG2 A 2014. p. 12. (PDF) from the original on 19 December 2019. Retrieved 15 February 2020.
3. Smith, J. B.; et al. (2001). "19. Vulnerability to Climate Change and Reasons for Concern: A Synthesis" (PDF). In McCarthy, J. J.; et al. (eds.). Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF). Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. pp. 913–970. Retrieved 19 January 2022.
4. Stern, N. (2006). Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change: Part III: The Economics of Stabilisation. HM Treasury, London: http://hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm
5. Sampedro, Jon; Smith, Steven J.; Arto, Iñaki; González-Eguino, Mikel; Markandya, Anil; Mulvaney, Kathleen M.; Pizarro-Irizar, Cristina; Van Dingenen, Rita (2020). "Health co-benefits and mitigation costs as per the Paris Agreement under different technological pathways for energy supply". Environment International. 136: 105513. Bibcode:2020EnInt.13605513S. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.105513. hdl:10810/44202. PMID 32006762. S2CID 211004787.
6. IPCC, 2007: - Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2009-12-11 at the Wayback Machine [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, United States., XXX pp.
7. "Can cost benefit analysis grasp the climate change nettle? And can we..." Oxford Martin School. Retrieved 11 November 2019.
8. O'Neill, B., M. van Aalst, Z. Zaiton Ibrahim, L. Berrang Ford, S. Bhadwal, H. Buhaug, D. Diaz, K. Frieler, M. Garschagen, A. Magnan, G. Midgley, A. Mirzabaev, A. Thomas, and R.Warren, 2022: Chapter 16: Key Risks Across Sectors and Regions. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2411–2538, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.025
9. Luomi, Mari (2020). Global Climate Change Governance: The search for effectiveness and universality (Report). International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). JSTOR resrep29269.
10. Brown, Eryn (30 September 2021). "Now is the time to prepare for the economic shocks of battling climate change". Knowable Magazine. doi:10.1146/knowable-093021-1. Retrieved 21 January 2022.
11. van der Ploeg, Frederick; Rezai, Armon (6 October 2020). "Stranded Assets in the Transition to a Carbon-Free Economy". Annual Review of Resource Economics. 12 (1): 281–298. doi:10.1146/annurev-resource-110519-040938. hdl:10419/215027. ISSN 1941-1340.
12. IPCC, 2022: Summary for Policymakers [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3–33, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.001
13. Parry, M. L.; et al., "TS.5.4 Perspectives on climate change and sustainability. In (book chapter) Technical summary", Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, in IPCC AR4 WG2 2007
14. Sathaye, J.; et al. (2009), "12.3 Implications of mitigation choices for sustainable development goals. In (book chapter) 12. Sustainable Development and mitigation", Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change (PDF), Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 38, p. 837, Bibcode:2009JEnvQ..38..837V, doi:10.2134/jeq2008.0024br, in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007
15. Shindell D; Faluvegi G; Seltzer K; Shindell C (2018). "Quantified, Localized Health Benefits of Accelerated Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reductions". Nat Clim Change. 8 (4): 291–295. Bibcode:2018NatCC...8..291S. doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0108-y. PMC 5880221. PMID 29623109.
16. Watts N; Amann M; Arnell N; Ayeb-Karlsson S; Belesova K; Boykoff M; et al. (2019). "The 2019 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: ensuring that the health of a child born today is not defined by a changing climate". Lancet. 394 (10211): 1836–1878. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32596-6. hdl:10871/40583. PMID 31733928. S2CID 207976337.
17. Oliver Richters et al.: NGFS Climate Scenario Database: Technical Documentation V3.1, 2022. NGFS Climate Scenarios Data Set, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.5782903.
18. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Staff. (26 January 2015). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change : Working Group III Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1107654815. OCLC 994399607.
19. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, issuing body. Global warming of 1.5°C. OCLC 1056192590.
20. Rogelj, J. Popp, A. Calvin, K.V. Luderer, G. Emmerling, J. Gernaat, D. Fujimori, S. Strefler, J. Hasegawa, T. Marangoni, G. Krey, V. Kriegler, E. Riahi, K. van Vuuren, D.P. Doelman, J. Drouet, L. Edmonds, J. Fricko, O. Harmsen, M. Havlik, P. Humpenöder, F. Stehfest, E. Tavoni, M. (5 March 2018). Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C. Nature Publishing Group. OCLC 1039547304.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
21. Böhringer, Christoph; Rutherford, Thomos F. (September 2009). "Integrated assessment of energy policies: Decomposing top-down and bottom-up". Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control. 33 (9): 1648–1661. doi:10.1016/j.jedc.2008.12.007. ISSN 0165-1889.
22. "Explainer: How 'Shared Socioeconomic Pathways' explore future climate change". Carbon Brief. 19 April 2018. Retrieved 2 June 2019.
23. Riahi, Keywan; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Kriegler, Elmar; Edmonds, Jae; O’Neill, Brian C.; Fujimori, Shinichiro; Bauer, Nico; Calvin, Katherine; Dellink, Rob (1 January 2017). "The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview". Global Environmental Change. 42: 153–168. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009. hdl:10044/1/78069. ISSN 0959-3780.
24. Stehfest, E. (Elke) (2014). Integrated assessment of global environmental change with IMAGE 3.0 : model description and policy applications. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. ISBN 9789491506710. OCLC 884831253.
25. Huppmann, Daniel; Gidden, Matthew; Fricko, Oliver; Kolp, Peter; Orthofer, Clara; Pimmer, Michael; Kushin, Nikolay; Vinca, Adriano; Mastrucci, Alessio (February 2019). "The MESSAGE Integrated Assessment Model and the ix modeling platform (ixmp): An open framework for integrated and cross-cutting analysis of energy, climate, the environment, and sustainable development" (PDF). Environmental Modelling & Software. 112: 143–156. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.11.012. S2CID 57375075.
26. Fujimori, Shinichiro; Masui, Toshihiko; Matsuoka, Yuzuru (2017), "AIM/CGE V2.0 Model Formula", Post-2020 Climate Action, Springer Singapore, pp. 201–303, doi:10.1007/978-981-10-3869-3_12, ISBN 9789811038686
27. Calvin, Katherine; Patel, Pralit; Clarke, Leon; Asrar, Ghassem; Bond-Lamberty, Ben; Cui, Ryna Yiyun; Di Vittorio, Alan; Dorheim, Kalyn; Edmonds, Jae (15 February 2019). "GCAM v5.1: representing the linkages between energy, water, land, climate, and economic systems". Geoscientific Model Development. 12 (2): 677–698. Bibcode:2019GMD....12..677C. doi:10.5194/gmd-12-677-2019. ISSN 1991-9603.
28. Luderer, Gunnar; Leimbach, Marian; Bauer, Nico; Kriegler, Elmar; Baumstark, Lavinia; Bertram, Christoph; Giannousakis, Anastasis; Hilaire, Jerome; Klein, David (2015). "Description of the REMIND Model (Version 1.6)". SSRN Working Paper Series. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2697070. ISSN 1556-5068. S2CID 11719708.
29. Baumstark, Lavinia; Bauer, Nico; Benke, Falk; Bertram, Christoph; Bi, Stephen; Gong, Chen Chris; Dietrich, Jan Philipp; Dirnaichner, Alois; Giannousakis, Anastasis; Hilaire, Jérôme; Klein, David (28 October 2021). "REMIND2.1: transformation and innovation dynamics of the energy-economic system within climate and sustainability limits". Geoscientific Model Development. 14 (10): 6571–6603. Bibcode:2021GMD....14.6571B. doi:10.5194/gmd-14-6571-2021. ISSN 1991-959X.
30. Bosetti, Valentina; Carraro, Carlo; Galeotti, Marzio; Massetti, Emanuele; Tavoni, Massimo (2006). "WITCH - A World Induced Technical Change Hybrid Model" (PDF). SSRN Working Paper Series. doi:10.2139/ssrn.948382. ISSN 1556-5068. S2CID 155558316.
31. Gambhir, Ajay; Butnar, Isabela; Li, Pei-Hao; Smith, Pete; Strachan, Neil (8 May 2019). "A Review of Criticisms of Integrated Assessment Models and Proposed Approaches to Address These, through the Lens of BECCS" (PDF). Energies. 12 (9): 1747. doi:10.3390/en12091747. ISSN 1996-1073.
32. Huppmann, Daniel; Rogelj, Joeri; Kriegler, Elmar; Krey, Volker; Riahi, Keywan (15 October 2018). "A new scenario resource for integrated 1.5 °C research" (PDF). Nature Climate Change. 8 (12): 1027–1030. Bibcode:2018NatCC...8.1027H. doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0317-4. ISSN 1758-678X. S2CID 92398486.
33. Hafner, Sarah; Anger-Kraavi, Annela; Monasterolo, Irene; Jones, Aled (1 November 2020). "Emergence of New Economics Energy Transition Models: A Review". Ecological Economics. 177: 106779. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106779. ISSN 0921-8009. S2CID 224854628.
34. Mercure, Jean-Francois; Pollit, Hector; Neil, Edward; Holden, Philip; Unnada, Unnada (2018). "Environmental impact assessment for climate change policy with the simulation-based integrated assessment model E3ME-FTT-GENIE". Energy Strategy Reviews. 20: 195–208. arXiv:1707.04870. doi:10.1016/j.esr.2018.03.003. ISSN 2211-467X.
35. Lamperti, F.; Dosi, G.; Napoletano, M.; Roventini, A.; Sapio, A. (2018). "Faraway, So Close: Coupled Climate and Economic Dynamics in an Agent-based Integrated Assessment Model". Ecological Economics. 150: 315–339. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.023. hdl:11382/517765. ISSN 0921-8009.
36. Clarke L., K. Jiang, K. Akimoto, M. Babiker, G. Blanford, K. Fisher-Vanden, J.-C. Hourcade, V. Krey, E. Kriegler, A. Löschel, D. McCollum, S. Paltsev, S. Rose, P.R. Shukla, M. Tavoni, B.C.C. van der Zwaan, and D.P. van Vuuren, 2014: Assessing Transformation Pathways. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
37. Dell, M., Jones, B. F., & Olken, B. A. (2014). What do we learn from the weather? The new climate-economy literature. Journal of Economic literature, 52(3), 740-798.
38. IPCC, 2022: Annex II: Glossary [Möller, V., R. van Diemen, J.B.R. Matthews, C. Méndez, S. Semenov, J.S. Fuglestvedt, A. Reisinger (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2897–2930, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.029
39. Clarke L., K. Jiang, K. Akimoto, M. Babiker, G. Blanford, K. Fisher-Vanden, J.-C. Hourcade, V. Krey, E. Kriegler, A. Löschel, D. McCollum, S. Paltsev, S. Rose, P.R. Shukla, M. Tavoni, B.C.C. van der Zwaan, and D.P. van Vuuren, 2014: Assessing Transformation Pathways. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
40. Kolstad C., K. Urama, J. Broome, A. Bruvoll, M. Cariño Olvera, D. Fullerton, C. Gollier, W.M. Hanemann, R. Hassan, F. Jotzo, M.R. Khan, L. Meyer, and L. Mundaca, 2014: Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
41. Pearce, D. W.; et al., "6.1.2 The nature of damage assessment. In (book chapter) 6. The Social Costs of Climate Change: Greenhouse Damage and the Benefits of Control", IPCC SAR WG3 1996, pp. 184–185
42. Markandya, A.; et al. (2001). "7. Costing Methodologies.". In Metz, B.; Davidson, O; Swart, R.; Pan, J. (eds.). Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
43. Ahmad, Q. K.; et al., "2.5.3 Nonmarket impacts. In (book chapter) 2. Methods and Tools", IPCC TAR WG2 2001
44. Ahmad, Q. K.; et al., "2.7.2.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis. In (book chapter) 2. Methods and Tools", IPCC TAR WG2 2001
45. Goldemberg, J.; et al., "1.3 Contribution of Economics. In (book chapter) 1. Introduction: scope of the Assessment", IPCC SAR WG3 1996, p. 24
46. Arrow, K. J.; et al., "4.1.1 Areas of agreement and disagreement. In (book chapter) 4. Intertemporal Equity, Discounting, and Economic Efficiency", IPCC SAR WG3 1996, pp. 130–131
47. Ahmad, Q. K.; et al., "2.5.4.1. Insurance and the Cost of Uncertainty. In (book chapter) 2. Methods and Tools", IPCC TAR WG2 2001
48. Ahmad, Q. K.; et al., "2.5.1.3 Discounting the future. In (book chapter) 2. Methods and Tools", IPCC TAR WG2 2001
49. Ackerman, Frank; DeCanio, Stephen J.; Howarth, Richard B.; Sheeran, Kristen (August 2009). "Limitations of integrated assessment models of climate change" (PDF). Climatic Change. 95 (3–4): 297–315. Bibcode:2009ClCh...95..297A. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9570-x. S2CID 14011838. Retrieved 21 January 2022.
50. Spash, C. L. (2008). "The economics of avoiding action on climate change" (PDF). Adbusters #75. 16 (1): 4–5. Retrieved 21 January 2022.
51. DeCanio, S. J. (17 October 2007), "Reflections on Climate Change, Economic Development, and Global Equity : Presented at the 2007 Leontief Prize Ceremony Tufts University Global Development and Environment Institute October 17, 2007", www.academia.edu
52. Halsnæs, K.; et al., "2.3.3 Costs, benefits and uncertainties. In (book chapter) 2. Framing issues", IPCC AR4 WG3 2007
53. Goldemberg, J.; et al., "1.4.1 General issues. In (book chapter) 1. Introduction: scope of the Assessment", IPCC SAR WG3 1996, pp. 31–32
54. Toth, F. L.; et al. (2001). "10. Decision-making Frameworks". In Metz, B.; Davidson, O; Swart, R.; Pan, J.; et al. (eds.). Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 20 January 2022.
55. Stern, N. H. (2006). "13. Towards a Goal for Climate-Change Policy" (PDF). Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (pre-publication ed.). London, UK: HM Treasury.
56. Heal, Geoffrey (1 January 2009). "Climate Economics: A Meta-Review and Some Suggestions for Future Research" (PDF). Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 3 (1): 4–21. doi:10.1093/reep/ren014. Retrieved 19 January 2022.
57. Barker, T. (August 2008). "The economics of avoiding dangerous climate change. An editorial essay on The Stern Review". Climatic Change. 89 (3–4): 173–194. Bibcode:2008ClCh...89..173B. doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9433-x. S2CID 54026931.
58. The World Bank (2010). "Overview: Changing the Climate for Development" (PDF). World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. pp. 8–35. doi:10.1596/978-0-8213-7987-5. ISBN 978-0-8213-7987-5. Retrieved 19 January 2022.
59. Downing, T. E.; et al. (2001). "2. Methods and Tools" (PDF). In McCarthy, J. J.; et al. (eds.). Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF). Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. pp. 105–144. Retrieved 19 January 2022.
60. Roson, R. and M. Sartori, 2016: Estimation of climate change damage functions for 140 regions in the GTAP 9 data base. J. Glob. Econ. Anal., 1(2), doi:10.21642/JGEA.010202AF
61. Watkiss, P. and Hunt, A. (2012). Cost-effectiveness analysis:: Decision Support Methods for Adaptation, MEDIATION Project, Briefing Note 2. Funded by the EC's 7FWP
62. New, M., D. Reckien, D. Viner, C. Adler, S.-M. Cheong, C. Conde, A. Constable, E. Coughlan de Perez, A. Lammel, R. Mechler, B. Orlove, and W. Solecki, 2022: Chapter 17: Decision-Making Options for Managing Risk. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2539–2654, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.026
63. Stern, Nicholas (May 2008). "The Economics of Climate Change". American Economic Review. 98 (2): 1–37. doi:10.1257/aer.98.2.1. ISSN 0002-8282. S2CID 59019533.
64. Schneider, S.H.; et al., "19.1.1 Purpose, scope and structure of the chapter. In (book chapter) 19: Assessing Key Vulnerabilities and the Risk from Climate Change", Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, in IPCC AR4 WG2 2007, p. 782
65. Stevens, Harry (1 March 2023). "The United States has caused the most global warming. When will China pass it?". The Washington Post. from the original on 1 March 2023.
66. Webster, M.; et al. (December 2002), Report 95: Uncertainty Analysis of Climate Change and Policy Response (PDF), Cambridge MA, USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Joint Program Report Series, pp. 3–4, retrieved 20 January 2022
67. Wilbanks, T. J.; et al., "7.4 Key future impacts and vulnerabilities. In (book chapter) 7. Industry, Settlement and Society", Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, in IPCC AR4 WG2 2007
68. Fisher, B. S.; et al. (2007). "3.1.4 Economic growth and convergence. In (book chapter) 3. Issues related to mitigation in the long term context". In Metz, B.; et al. (eds.). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF). Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-88011-4. Retrieved 19 January 2022.
69. National Research Council (2011). "Chapter Four: A Framework for Making America's Climate Choices". America's climate choices. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-14585-5.
70. Goldemberg, J.; et al., "1. Introduction: scope of the Assessment", IPCC SAR WG3 1996
71. Grippa, Pierpaolo; Schmittmann, Jochen; Suntheim, Felix (2019). "Climate Change and Financial Risk Central banks and financial regulators are starting to factor in climate change". Finance & Development. 56 (4). Retrieved 21 January 2022.
72. IPCC (2007), "Table SPM.1. In (book chapter) Summary for Policymakers" (PDF), in Core Writing Team; Pachauri, R.K; Reisinger, A. (eds.), Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, p. 8, ISBN 978-92-9169-122-7, retrieved 20 January 2022
73. Schneider, S. H.; et al., "19.4.2.2 Scenario analysis and analysis of stabilisation targets. In (book chapter) 19. Assessing Key Vulnerabilities and the Risk from Climate Change", Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, in IPCC AR4 WG2 2007, p. 801
74. Yohe, G.W. (May 2010). "Addressing Climate Change through a Risk Management Lens". In Gulledge, J.; Richardson, L. J.; Adkins, L.; Seidel, S. (eds.). Assessing the Benefits of Avoided Climate Change: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Beyond. Proceedings of Workshop on Assessing the Benefits of Avoided Climate Change, March 16–17, 2009 (PDF). Arlington, Virginia, USA: Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Retrieved 18 January 2022.
75. Nordhaus, William (August 2018). "Projections and Uncertainties about Climate Change in an Era of Minimal Climate Policies". American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. 10 (3): 333–360. doi:10.1257/pol.20170046. ISSN 1945-7731. S2CID 158112579.
76. Ekholm, Tommi (December 2018). "Climatic Cost-benefit Analysis Under Uncertainty and Learning on Climate Sensitivity and Damages". Ecological Economics. 154: 99–106. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.07.024. S2CID 158212518. Retrieved 21 January 2022.
77. Hassler, John; Krusell, Per; Olovsson, Conny (2019). The consequences of uncertainty: Climate sensitivity and economic sensitivity to the climate. Sveriges Riksbank Working Paper Series, No. 369. Sveriges Riksbank. hdl:10419/215447. Retrieved 21 January 2022.
78. Fisher, B. S.; et al. (10 September 2007), "3.5.1.1 An iterative risk-management framework to articulate options. In (book chapter) 3: Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context", in Metz, B.; et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF), Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88011-4, retrieved 19 January 2022
79. Toth, F. L .; et al., "10.1.4.1 Decision Making under Uncertainty. In (book chapter) 10. Decision-making Frameworks", Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. In IPCC TAR WG3 2001
80. Barker, T.; et al. (10 September 2007). "Article 2 of the Convention and mitigation. In (book chapter) Technical Summary". In Metz, B.; et al. (eds.). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF). Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. pp. 619–690. ISBN 978-0-521-88011-4. Retrieved 19 January 2022.
81. Goldemberg, J.; et al., "1.3.2 Sequential decision making. In (book chapter) 1. Introduction: Scope of the assessment", IPCC SAR WG3 1996, p. 26 (32 of PDF)
82. Diederich, A. (1 January 2001), "Sequential Decision Making", in Smelser, Neil J.; Baltes, Paul B. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 13917–13922, ISBN 978-0-08-043076-8, retrieved 27 April 2023
83. "Government publishes UK's Third Climate Change Risk Assessment". GOV.UK. Retrieved 22 January 2022.
84. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (November 2012), "3.7 Results of later action scenarios. In (book chapter) Chapter 3: The emissions gap – an update" (PDF), The Emissions Gap Report 2012: A UNEP Synthesis Report, Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP, pp. 28–29, archived from the original (PDF) on 13 May 2016, retrieved 21 January 2022. Report website Archived 13 May 2016 at the Portuguese Web Archive, which includes the Appendix, and the Executive Summary in other languages.
85. Defra/HM Treasury (21 June 2005), Minutes of Evidence, Annex 3, in House of Lords 2005, HL 12-II (evidence)
86. Hunt, A, and Watkiss, P (2013). Portfolio Analysis: Decision Support Methods for Adaptation, MEDIATION Project, Briefing Note 5. Funded by the EC's 7FWP
87. Hunt, A., & Fraschini, F. (2020). Portfolio analysis as a means of managing uncertainties in climate change adaptation: Some initial reflections. Ekonomiaz, 97(1), 63-81.
88. Eriksen, Siri; Schipper, E. Lisa F.; Scoville-Simonds, Morgan; Vincent, Katharine; Adam, Hans Nicolai; Brooks, Nick; Harding, Brian; Khatri, Dil; Lenaerts, Lutgart; Liverman, Diana; Mills-Novoa, Megan (1 May 2021). "Adaptation interventions and their effect on vulnerability in developing countries: Help, hindrance or irrelevance?". World Development. 141: 105383. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105383. hdl:10852/85670. ISSN 0305-750X. S2CID 233539315.
89. Hunt, A. and Watkiss, P. (2011). Method for the Adaptation Economic Assessment to accompany the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA), DEFRA, UK
90. Kotz, Mazimilian.; Levermann, Anders; Wenz, Leonie (17 April 2024). "The economic commitment of climate change". nature. 628: 551–557. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07219-0. PMC 11023931.
91. Alkousaa, Riham (17 April 2024). More, Rachel; Daigle, Katy; Lewis, Barbara (eds.). "Climate change damage could cost $38 trillion per year by 2050, study finds". Retrieved 17 April 2024.
92. World Meteorological Society (WMO) (2021). WMO Atlas of Mortality and Economic Losses from Weather, Climate and Water Extremes (1970–2019). https://library.wmo.int/idurl/4/57564
93. UNDRR (2023). The Report of the Midterm Review of the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. UNDRR: Geneva, Switzerland.
94. Bouwer, Laurens M. (2019), Mechler, Reinhard; Bouwer, Laurens M.; Schinko, Thomas; Surminski, Swenja (eds.), "Observed and Projected Impacts from Extreme Weather Events: Implications for Loss and Damage", Loss and Damage from Climate Change: Concepts, Methods and Policy Options, Climate Risk Management, Policy and Governance, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 63–82, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-72026-5_3, ISBN 978-3-319-72026-5
95. Seneviratne, S.I., X. Zhang, M. Adnan, W. Badi, C. Dereczynski, A. Di Luca, S. Ghosh, I. Iskandar, J. Kossin, S. Lewis, F. Otto, I. Pinto, M. Satoh, S.M. Vicente-Serrano, M. Wehner, and B. Zhou, 2021: Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1513–1766, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.013
96. Newman, R., Noy, I. The global costs of extreme weather that are attributable to climate change. Nat Commun 14, 6103 (2023). doi:10.1038/s41467-023-41888-1
97. Kramer, Katherine; Ware, Joe (December 2019). (PDF). Christian Aid. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 February 2020. Retrieved 31 May 2020.
98. IPCC (2014), The Core Writing Team; Pachauri, R. K.; Meyer, L. A. (eds.), Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC
99. Harris, Jonathan M.; Roach, Brian; Codur, Anne-Marie (2017). "The Economics of Global Climate Change" (PDF). Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University.
100. Wei, Yi-Ming; Han, Rong; Wang, Ce; Yu, Biying; Liang, Qiao-Mei; Yuan, Xiao-Chen; Chang, Junjie; Zhao, Qingyu; Liao, Hua; Tang, Baojun; Yan, Jinyue; Cheng, Lijing; Yang, Zili; et al. (2020). "Self-preservation strategy for approaching global warming targets in the post-Paris Agreement era". Nat Commun. 11 (1): 1624. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11.1624W. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-15453-z. PMC 7156390. PMID 32286257.
101. Hoegh-Guldberg, O.; Jacob, D.; Taylor, M.; Bindi, M.; et al. (2018). "Chapter 3: Impacts of 1.5 °C Global Warming on Natural and Human Systems" (PDF). IPCC SR15 2018. p. 256. (PDF) from the original on 15 November 2019. Retrieved 15 December 2019.
102. Koning Beals, Rachel. "Global GDP will suffer at least a 3% hit by 2050 from unchecked climate change, say economists". MarketWatch. from the original on 29 March 2020. Retrieved 29 March 2020.
103. Kompas, Tom; Pham, Van Ha; Che, Tuong Nhu (2018). "The Effects of Climate Change on GDP by Country and the Global Economic Gains From Complying With the Paris Climate Accord". Earth's Future. 6 (8): 1153–1173. Bibcode:2018EaFut...6.1153K. doi:10.1029/2018EF000922. hdl:1885/265534. ISSN 2328-4277.
104. "Climate Change Could Cut World Economy by $23 Trillion in 2050, Insurance Giant Warns: Poor Nations Would Be Particularly Hard Hit, But Few Would Escape, Swiss Re Said"
105. Irwin, Neil (17 January 2019). "Climate Change's Giant Impact on the Economy: 4 Key Issues". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 22 January 2019.
106. Chart based on: Milman, Oliver (12 July 2022). "Nearly $2tn of damage inflicted on other countries by US emissions". The Guardian. from the original on 12 July 2022. Guardian cites Callahan, Christopher W.; Mankin, Justin S. (12 July 2022). "National attribution of historical climate damages". Climatic Change. 172 (40): 40. Bibcode:2022ClCh..172...40C. doi:10.1007/s10584-022-03387-y. S2CID 250430339. Graphic's caption is from Callahan et al.
107. Cissé, G., R. McLeman, H. Adams, P. Aldunce, K. Bowen, D. Campbell-Lendrum, S. Clayton, K.L. Ebi, J. Hess, C. Huang, Q. Liu, G. McGregor, J. Semenza, and M.C. Tirado, 2022: Health, Wellbeing, and the Changing Structure of Communities. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1041–1170, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.009
108. Working on a warmer planet The impact of heat stress on labour productivity and decent work (PDF). International Labour Organization. 2019. Retrieved 7 July 2019.
109. "International Labour Organization Warns of Heat-Related Job Losses". United Nations Climate Change. Retrieved 7 July 2019.
110. "Rapid global switch to renewable energy estimated to save millions of lives annually". London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. 1 April 2019. Retrieved 2 June 2019.
111. COP24 special report: health and climate change (PDF). World Health Organization. 2018. p. 52. ISBN 978-92-4-151497-2.
112. "Letters to the editor". The Economist. 9 May 2019. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2 June 2019.
113. Buchholz, Katharina (4 February 2022). "Will Climate Change End The Winter Olympics?". Forbes. from the original on 12 January 2023. — Bucholz cites Scott, Daniel; Knowles, Natalie L. B.; Ma, Siyao; Rutty, Michelle; Steiger, Robert (10 January 2022). "Climate change and the future of the Olympic Winter Games: athlete and coach perspectives". Current Issues in Tourism. 26 (3): 480–495. doi:10.1080/13683500.2021.2023480. S2CID 245865532.
114. Tol, Richard S. J. (1 February 2018). "The Economic Impacts of Climate Change". Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 12 (1): 4–25. doi:10.1093/reep/rex027. hdl:1871.1/bedbd1e4-07fd-433a-a39e-56b8a67c1ae3. ISSN 1750-6816.
115. Kundzewicz, Z.W.; et al. (2007). . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A. pp. 173–210. Archived from the original on 5 October 2018. Retrieved 20 May 2009.
116. Wilbanks, T.J.; et al. (2007). . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A. pp. 357–390. Archived from the original on 5 October 2018. Retrieved 20 May 2009.
117. Tol, R.S.J. (2008). (PDF). Environmental Values. 17 (4): 437–470. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.175.5947. doi:10.3197/096327108X368485. S2CID 18103757. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 July 2011. Retrieved 13 January 2010.
118. Watts, Jonathan; Kirk, Ashley; McIntyre, Niamh; Gutiérrez, Pablo; Kommenda, Niko. "Half world's fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition". the Guardian. Retrieved 2 February 2022.
119. IPCC, 2021: Annex VII: Glossary [Matthews, J.B.R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J.S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, C. Méndez, S. Semenov, A. Reisinger (eds.)]. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215–2256, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.022
120. Barker, T.; et al. (2007). "Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective.". In B. Metz; et al. (eds.). . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A. Archived from the original on 8 June 2011. Retrieved 20 May 2009.
121. IPCC, 2007: - Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2009-12-11 at the Wayback Machine [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, United States., XXX pp.
122. Stern, N. (2006). Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change: Part III: The Economics of Stabilisation. HM Treasury, London: http://hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm
123. Sampedro, Jon; Smith, Steven J.; Arto, Iñaki; González-Eguino, Mikel; Markandya, Anil; Mulvaney, Kathleen M.; Pizarro-Irizar, Cristina; Van Dingenen, Rita (2020). "Health co-benefits and mitigation costs as per the Paris Agreement under different technological pathways for energy supply". Environment International. 136: 105513. Bibcode:2020EnInt.13605513S. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.105513. hdl:10810/44202. PMID 32006762. S2CID 211004787.
124. "Can cost benefit analysis grasp the climate change nettle? And can we..." Oxford Martin School. Retrieved 11 November 2019.
125. "Below 1.5°C: a breakthrough roadmap to solve the climate crisis". One Earth. Retrieved 21 November 2022.
126. Teske, Sven, ed. (2 August 2019). Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals: Global and Regional 100% Renewable Energy Scenarios with Non-energy GHG Pathways for +1.5°C and +2°C. Springer Science+Business Media. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-05843-2. ISBN 978-3030058425. S2CID 198078901 – via www.springer.com.
127. "The crucial intersection between gender and climate". European Investment Bank. Retrieved 29 December 2023.
128. Nations, United. "Finance & Justice". United Nations. Retrieved 29 December 2023.
129. IPCC (2022). Shukla, P.R.; Skea, J.; Slade, R.; Al Khourdajie, A.; et al. (eds.). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. p. 300.: The global benefits of pathways limiting warming to 2°C (>67%) outweigh global mitigation costs over the 21st century, if aggregated economic impacts of climate change are at the moderate to high end of the assessed range, and a weight consistent with economic theory is given to economic impacts over the long term. This holds true even without accounting for benefits in other sustainable development dimensions or nonmarket damages from climate change (medium confidence).
130. IPCC (2022) Chapter 3: Mitigation pathways compatible with long-term goals in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, United States
131. United Nations Environment Programme (2023). Adaptation Gap Report 2023: Underfinanced. Underprepared. Inadequate investment and planning on climate adaptation leaves world exposed. Nairobi. https://doi . org/10.59117/20.500.11822/43796
132. Hallegatte, Stephane; Rentschler, Jun; Rozenberg, Julie. 2019. Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity. Sustainable Infrastructure;. Washington, DC: World Bank. hdl:10986/31805 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.
133. Pearce, D. (November 2003). (PDF). Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 19 (3): 362–384. doi:10.1093/oxrep/19.3.362. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 February 2009. Retrieved 10 January 2009.
134. Banuri, T.; et al. (1996). "3. Equity and Social Considerations". In Bruce, J. P.; et al. (eds.). Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF). Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. pp. 79–124. ISBN 978-0-521-56854-8. Retrieved 19 January 2022.
135. Halsnæs, K.; et al. (2007). "2.6.4 Equity consequences of different policy instruments. In (book chapter) 2. Framing issues" (PDF). In Metz, B.; et al. (eds.). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF). Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. pp. 117–168. ISBN 978-0-521-88011-4. Retrieved 19 January 2022.
136. Hepburn, C. (28 February 2005). "Memorandum by Dr Cameron Hepburn, St Hugh's College, University of Oxford.". The Economics of Climate Change. Second Report of 2005–2006 Volume II, HL Paper No. 12-II. House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee. ISBN 978-0-19-957328-8. Retrieved 6 April 2010.
137. Helm, D. (1 November 2008). . Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 24 (2): 211–238. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grn014. Archived from the original on 1 May 2011. Retrieved 6 April 2010.
138. Munasinghe, M.; et al. (1996). "5. Applicability of Techniques of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Climate Change". In Bruce, J. P.; et al. (eds.). Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF). Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. pp. 145–178. ISBN 978-0-521-56854-8.
139. Diffenbaugh, Noah S.; Burke, Marshall (2019). "Global warming has increased global economic inequality". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 116 (20): 9808–9813. Bibcode:2019PNAS..116.9808D. doi:10.1073/pnas.1816020116. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 6525504. PMID 31010922.
140. Tol, Richard S. J (1 April 2009). "The Economic Effects of Climate Change". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 23 (2): 29–51. doi:10.1257/jep.23.2.29. ISSN 0895-3309. S2CID 15530729.
141. "Linking Climate and Inequality". IMF. Retrieved 27 April 2023.
142. Yohe, G.W.; et al. (2007). "20.6 Global and aggregate impacts; 20.6.1 History and present state of aggregate impact estimates". In M.L. Parry; et al. (eds.). . Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. Archived from the original on 7 November 2011. Retrieved 12 October 2011.
143. "Social Cost of Carbon 101". Resources for the Future. Retrieved 25 August 2020.
144. "What is the social cost of carbon?". Brookings. Retrieved 15 December 2023.
145. IPCC (2022). "Summary for Policymakers". Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF). Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. p. 37.
146. Cordeau, Hugo (6 June 2023). "The social cost of carbon". Canada's National Observer. Retrieved 15 December 2023.
147. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. 2017. p. 9.
148. IPCC SR15 Ch4 2018, p. 374
149. Kikstra, Jarmo S.; Waidelich, Paul; Rising, James; Yumashev, Dmitry; Hope, Chris; Brierley, Chris M. (6 September 2021). "The social cost of carbon dioxide under climate-economy feedbacks and temperature variability". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (9): 094037. Bibcode:2021ERL....16i4037K. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac1d0b. ISSN 1748-9326.
150. Rennert, Kevin; Errickson, Frank; Prest, Brian C.; Rennels, Lisa; et al. (1 September 2022). "Comprehensive Evidence Implies a Higher Social Cost of CO2". Nature. 610 (7933): 687–692. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05224-9. PMC 9605864. PMID 36049503. S2CID 252010506.
151. Herweijer, Celine; Ranger, Nicola; Ward, Robert E T (1 July 2009). "Adaptation to Climate Change: Threats and Opportunities for the Insurance Industry". The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice. 34 (3): 360–380. doi:10.1057/gpp.2009.13. ISSN 1468-0440. S2CID 154387945.
152. Flavelle, Christopher (22 April 2021). "Climate Change Could Cut World Economy by $23 Trillion in 2050, Insurance Giant Warns". The New York Times. Retrieved 20 January 2022.
153. "The economics of climate change". Swiss Re Institute. 22 April 2021. Retrieved 20 January 2022.
154. Cho, Renee (20 June 2019). "How Climate Change Impacts the Economy". State of the Planet. Columbia University, Columbia Climate School, Climate, Earth, Society. Retrieved 20 January 2022.
155. Arrow, K. J.; et al. (1996). "2. Decision-making frameworks for addressing climate change". In Bruce, J. P.; et al. (eds.). Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF). Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. pp. 53–78. ISBN 978-0-521-56854-8.
156. DeFries, Ruth; Edenhofer, Ottmar; Halliday, Alex; Heal, Geoffrey; et al. (September 2019). The missing economic risks in assessments of climate change impacts (PDF) (Report). Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science.
157. Krogstrup, Signe; Oman, William (4 September 2019). Macroeconomic and Financial Policies for Climate Change Mitigation: A Review of the Literature (PDF) (Report). IMF working papers. doi:10.5089/9781513511955.001. ISBN 978-1-5135-1195-5. ISSN 1018-5941. S2CID 203245445.
158. Carrington, Damian (27 November 2019). "Climate emergency: world "may have crossed tipping points"". the Guardian.
159. Harris, Jonathan M.; Roach, Brian; Codur, Anne-Marie (2015). "The Economics of Global Climate Change" (PDF). Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University.
160. UNEP (1 December 2020). "Figure ES.8. Per capita and absolute CO 2 consumption emissions by four global income groups for 2015. In (book chapter) Executive Summary". Emissions Gap Report 2020. United Nations Environment Programme. p. xxv. Retrieved 21 January 2022.
161. Cozzi, Laura; Chen, Olivia; Kim, Hyeji (22 February 2023). "The world's top 1% of emitters produce over 1000 times more CO2 than the bottom 1%". iea.org. International Energy Agency (IEA). from the original on 3 March 2023. "Methodological note: ... The analysis accounts for energy-related CO2, and not other greenhouse gases, nor those related to land use and agriculture."
162. Sathaye, J.; et al. (2007). "Sustainable Development and Mitigation". In B. Metz; et al. (eds.). . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A. Archived from the original on 2 November 2018. Retrieved 20 May 2009.
163. Ripple, William J; Wolf, Christopher; Newsome, Thomas M; Barnard, Phoebe; Moomaw, William R (5 November 2019). "World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency". BioScience. 70: 8–12. doi:10.1093/biosci/biz088. hdl:1808/30278. Retrieved 25 November 2022. Economic and population growth are among the most important drivers of increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion...
164. Wiedmann, Thomas; Lenzen, Manfred; Keyßer, Lorenz T.; Steinberger, Julia K. (2020). "Scientists' warning on affluence". Nature Communications. 11 (3107): 3107. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11.3107W. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y. PMC 7305220. PMID 32561753.
165. "Overconsumption and growth economy key drivers of environmental crises" (Press release). Phys.org. University of New South Wales. Retrieved 22 December 2022.
166. "Economic growth no longer means higher carbon emissions". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 28 December 2022.
167. "2021-2022 EIB Climate Survey, part 3 of 3: The economic and social impact of the green transition". EIB.org. Retrieved 4 April 2022.
168. "1.5 °C degrowth scenarios suggest need for new mitigation pathways". phys.org. Retrieved 14 June 2021.Alternative Link
169. Keyßer, Lorenz T.; Lenzen, Manfred (11 May 2021). "1.5 °C degrowth scenarios suggest the need for new mitigation pathways". Nature Communications. 12 (1): 2676. Bibcode:2021NatCo..12.2676K. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-22884-9. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 8113441. PMID 33976156.   Available under CC BY 4.0.
170. Hickel, Jason; Kallis, Giorgos (6 June 2020). "Is Green Growth Possible?". New Political Economy. 25 (4): 469–486. doi:10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964. ISSN 1356-3467. S2CID 159148524.

Sources

• IPCC AR5 WG2 A (2014), Field, C.B.; et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II (WG2) to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, from the original on 16 April 2014{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link). Archived
• IPCC (2018). Masson-Delmotte, V.; Zhai, P.; Pörtner, H. O.; Roberts, D.; et al. (eds.). Global Warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (PDF). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
• IPCC TAR WG2 (2001), McCarthy, J. J.; Canziani, O. F.; Leary, N. A.; Dokken, D. J.; White, K. S. (eds.), Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-80768-5, retrieved 2 August 2019{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) (pb: 0-521-01500-6).
• IPCC AR4 WG2 (2007), Parry, M.L.; Canziani, O.F.; Palutikof, J.P.; van der Linden, P.J.; Hanson, C.E. (eds.), , Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88010-7, archived from the original on 10 November 2018, retrieved 22 January 2012{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) (pb: 978-0-521-70597-4).

• House of Lords (21 June 2005), The Economics of Climate Change, the Second Report of the 2005-2006 session (HL 12-I and HL 12-II), produced by the UK Parliament House of Lords (HOL) Economics Affairs Select Committee, London, UK: The Stationery Office. High-resolution PDF versions: HL 12-I (report), HL 12-II (evidence).
• IPCC SAR WG3 (1996), Bruce, J. P.; Lee, H.; Haites, E. F. (eds.), Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change (PDF), Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-56051-1{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) (pb: 0-521-56854-4)

• IPCC TAR WG3 (2001), Metz, B.; Davidson, O.; Swart, R.; Pan, J. (eds.), Climate Change 2001: Mitigation (PDF), Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-80769-2, retrieved 17 January 2022{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) (pb: 0-521-01502-2).

• IPCC AR4 WG3 (2007), Metz, B.; Davidson, O. R.; Bosch, P. R.; Dave, R.; Meyer, L. A. (eds.), Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change (PDF), Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88011-4{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) (pb: 978-0-521-70598-1).
• de Coninck, H.; Revi, A.; Babiker, M.; Bertoldi, P.; et al. (2018). "Chapter 4: Strengthening and Implementing the Global Response" (PDF). Global Warming of 1.5 °C. pp. 313–443.

External links

 

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

The Economics of Climate Change: a Primer

• Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy at University of Leeds and London School of Economics.
• "The economics of climate change". 2020 lecture by William Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University
• "From Climate Crisis to Real Prosperity". 2020 Reith lecture by Mark Carney, COP26 finance advisor