Global Temperatures Global Troposphere Temperatures click here For full size []]
Providing Insight
Into Climate Change
Economics
24Articles

The Global Economic Impact of Climate Change on Energy Expenditures

A paper, Lang and Gregory 2019, showed that a 3 °C increase in the global mean surface temperature would reduce USA energy expenditures and increase economic wealth by +0.07% of gross domestic product (GDP), whereas the FUND economic model projects an wealth impact of -0.80% of GDP. This article extends the analysis to global impact and finds a 3 °C increase would reduce global energy costs and increase wealth by +0.05% of gross world product (GWP) using empirical data, while FUND projects a wealth impact of -1.59% of GWP. The total economic impact of a 3 °C increase of global mean temperatures would increase wealth by +0.20% while FUND project -0.68% loss of wealth, assuming an climate sensitivity of 3.0 °C for double CO2. At a realistic ECS of 1.0 °C, the impact of a 2 °C temperature increase (in 2147) using empirical energy data would be +1.07% of GWP. This positive impact of global wealth increased to 1.45% of GWP when including an updated estimate of CO2 fertilization. This study shows that CO2 emissions have a large social benefit, so policies to restrict CO2 emissions are harmful and misguided.



Test of FUND’s Temperature Response to CO2

FUND is a widely cited integrated assessment model used to study the impacts of climate change. The FUND's temperature response to increasing CO2 alone at various equilibrium climate sensitivity values is tested by setting the CO2 increasing at 1% per year to a doubling of CO2 then held constant. At ECS = 1.5 °C the TCR is equal to the ECS, also 1.5 °C! This implies that the oceans are instantaneously in temperature equilibrium with the atmosphere, with no delay. This is physically impossible. The temperature responses to greenhouse gas emissions in FUND with ECS at or below 1.7 °C are much too high. The calculated social and economic impacts are therefore too high.



Climate Sensitivity, Agricultural Productivity and the Social Cost of Carbon in FUND

This paper by Dayaratna, McKtrick & Michaels evaluates the implications of recent empirical findings about CO2 fertilization and climate sensitivity on the social cost of carbon (SCC) in the FUND economic model. New satellite and experimental evidence suggests that the agricultural productivity gains due to CO2 fertilization are at least 30% greater than what is parameterized in the FUND economic model. The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) probability distributions used are from the Lewis & Curry 2018 (L&C) and Christy & McNider 2017 (C&M) empirical studies, which gives ECS best estimates of 1.5 °C and 1.4 °C, respectively. Using a 5% discount rate, the 30% increase of CO2 fertilization and L&C ECS parameters, the FUND model calculates a best estimate SCC in 2020 of 2018US$-4.08/tCO2 and there is a 0.78 probability that SCC is negative.



European Wind Plus Solar Cost 6 Times Other Electrical Sources

The residential electricity costs of the 28 European Union countries varies from 9.97 to 30.88 Euro cents in 2019. The best fit line of a graph of electricity prices versus installed solar plus wind capacity indicates that the average price with no wind and solar and wind capacity is 12.0 Eurocents/kWh. Germany’s 2019 solar plus wind actual generation was 33.7% of its net electrical generation from all sources. This implies that the solar plus wind electricity costs are 5.7 times that from other sources.



Economic Impact of Energy Consumption Change Caused by Global Warming

This paper by Peter Land and Ken Gregory tests the validity of the FUND model’s energy impact functions. Empirical data of energy expenditure and average temperatures of the US states and census divisions are compared with projections using the energy impact functions with non-temperature drivers held constant at their 2010 values. The empirical data indicates that energy expenditure decreases as temperatures increase, suggesting that global warming may reduce US energy expenditure and thereby have a positive impact on US economic growth. If FUND projections for the non-energy impact sectors are valid, 3 °C of global warming from 2000 would increase global economic growth.




web design & development by: