A newly published study states that the economic viability of the climate change objectives defined in the Paris Agreement hinges on emphasizing non-market aspects such as human health and biodiversity conservation. The study suggests a balanced approach towards weighing climate change mitigation costs and advantages, with a greater focus on health and biodiversity. Credit: IOP Publishing
According to the latest research led by Dr. Taikan Oki, former Senior Vice-Rector of United Nations University, Japan, and published in Environmental Research Letters, an IOP Publishing journal, the economic viability of the Paris Agreement’s climate change goals relies heavily on the consideration of non-economic factors such as biodiversity conservation and human health.
The research, conducted by a team of scientists from 23 institutions including the University of Tokyo, National Institute for Environmental Studies, and Kyoto University, undertook a cost-benefit analysis of climate change, incorporating previously neglected non-market factors like biodiversity loss and its impact on human health.
The team analyzed the cost of climate change under different priority systems, predicting the total cost, including mitigation from 2010 to 2099, to be between 46 and 230 trillion US dollars.
The findings indicate that the financial gains from climate change reduction often parallel the cost of mitigation efforts. Additional mitigation efforts are estimated to cost between 45 to 130 trillion US dollars, while the monetary benefits of these reduction measures range from 23 to 145 trillion US dollars. The researchers concluded that to make the 2°C temperature goal economically viable, more emphasis needs to be placed on future impacts of biodiversity and health, arguing that these factors will grow increasingly significant over time.
The study proposes an integrated approach to climate change, considering biodiversity and health issues alongside economic factors, particularly when non-market values such as health-related factors like diarrhoeal diseases and malaria, and the decline of species on Earth, are fully considered.
Dr. Oki, formerly the Coordinating Lead Author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, states: “Currently, the global quest for climate goals is off course. The future will be shaped by how much emphasis we place on risks such as large-scale irreversible events, and how we accept and manage them. A contributing factor to this situation is that mitigation costs often match or exceed the financial benefits of climate change reduction. We need to prioritize non-monetary values like human health and biodiversity more highly and hasten technological innovations to lower mitigation costs.”
Reference: “Total economic costs of climate change at different discount rates for market and non-market values” by Takahiro Oda, Jun’ya Takakura, Longlong Tang, Toshichika Iizumi, Norihiro Itsubo, Haruka Ohashi, Masashi Kiguchi, Naoko Kumano, Kiyoshi Takahashi, Masahiro Tanoue, Makoto Tamura, Qian Zhou, Naota Hanasaki, Tomoko Hasegawa, Chan Park, Yasuaki Hijioka, Yukiko Hirabayashi, Shinichiro Fujimori, Yasushi Honda, Tetsuya Matsui, Hiroyuki Matsuda, Hiromune Yokoki and Taikan Oki, 1 August 2023, Environmental Research Letters. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/accdee
Table of Contents
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Economic Viability of 2°C Climate Goal
What does the study propose for climate change mitigation?
The study proposes a balanced approach to climate change mitigation, with a focus not just on economic factors, but also on non-market aspects like human health and biodiversity. It suggests that the cost of these mitigation efforts often matches or even exceeds the potential financial gains. However, for the 2°C climate goal to be economically viable, there needs to be a greater emphasis on the future impacts on biodiversity and human health.
Who led the new study on the economic feasibility of the 2°C climate goal?
The study was led by Dr. Taikan Oki, a former Senior Vice-Rector of the United Nations University in Japan.
What aspects were incorporated in the cost-benefit analysis of climate change in this study?
The cost-benefit analysis of climate change in this study incorporated previously overlooked non-market aspects such as biodiversity loss and its implications on human health.
What were the study’s conclusions about the economic costs and benefits of climate change mitigation?
The study estimated that the total cost of climate change, including mitigation efforts from 2010 to 2099, could range from 46 to 230 trillion US dollars. The cost of additional mitigation efforts is projected to be between 45 to 130 trillion US dollars, while the financial benefits of these efforts could range from 23 to 145 trillion US dollars.
What is the significant role of non-market values in the climate change approach as per the study?
The study suggests that non-market values, such as health-related factors like diarrhoeal diseases and malaria, and the decline of species on Earth, should be fully considered in an integrated approach to climate change. Such an approach would consider biodiversity and health issues alongside economic factors.
More about Economic Viability of 2°C Climate Goal
- Economic Viability of the 2°C Climate Goal
- Paris Agreement
- Dr. Taikan Oki’s Work
- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
1 comment
This stuff’s always so worrying, huh? Like, we’ve got this huge climate challenge and yet we’re still struggling to balance cost and benefit. It’s our health and the planet’s biodiversity we’re talking about! Time to wake up, world.