Hitting toughest climate target will save world $30tn in damages, analysis shows
Almost all nations would benefit economically from keeping global warming to 1.5C, a new study indicates.
Achieving the toughest climate change target set in the global Paris agreement will save the world about $30tn in damages, far more than the costs of cutting carbon emissions, according to a new economic analysis.
Most nations, representing 90% of global population, would benefit economically from keeping global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, the research indicates. This includes almost all the world’s poorest countries, as well as the three biggest economies – the US, China and Japan – contradicting the claim of US president, Donald Trump, that climate action is too costly.
3 Responses to “Hitting toughest climate target will save world $30tn in damages, analysis shows”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Not sure I agree that Canada will benefit from higher temperatures?
That’s what I’ve heard, permafrost moving north and making more land available for growing food?
Sure, that may happen though there is no guarantee that the soil there is arable. More importantly, with the Arctic warming twice as much and twice as fast as other parts of the world right now we are losing and will lose many species that have created the northern ecology. There is the issue of trees moving north to keep up with the climate shifts – however, much of the change is happening too quickly for trees and other species (pollinators) to keep up. Right now the boreal forest, one of the lungs of the planet, is under stress from pest infestations and wildfires/drought. So is Canada going to benefit? Well, we will certainly grow in population but we will also have to cope with radically changed water regimes, extreme weather and the loss of the Arctic as we know it. There will be losses and wins and the final tally won’t be known for a long time. As the article points out. . . better to avoid the climate disruption altogether. It is certainly the cheaper option.