Ocean climate change damage to cost $2 trillion

Climate change could result in annual costs of nearly $2 trillion in damages to the world's ocean systems
A 2009 file photo released by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in Australia showing a section the Great Barrier Reef. A new study estimates that climate change could result in annual costs of nearly $2 trillion in damages to the world's ocean systems.

Greenhouse gases are likely to result in annual costs of nearly $2 trillion in damage to the oceans by 2100, according to a new Swedish study

The estimate by the Stockholm Environment Institute is based on the assumption that climate-altering continue their upward spiral without a pause.

Warmer seas will lead to greater acidification and oxygen loss, hitting fisheries and , it warns.

and storms will boost the risk of flood damage, especially around the coastlines of Africa and Asia, it adds.

Projecting forward using a business-as-usual scenario, the Earth's will rise by four degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, says the report, "Valuing the Ocean."

On this basis, the cost in 2050 will be $428 billion annually, or 0.25 percent of global domestic product (GDP).

The future of world's fisheries is under threat from projected levels of greenhouse gas emissions
Environmental activists and fishermen in Senegal stage a rally to draw attention to the problems of the country's fisheries sector. A new study warns that warmer seas resulting from current climate change projections will lead to greater acidification and oxygen loss, hitting fisheries and coral reefs.

By 2100, the cost would rise to $1,979 billion, or 0.37 percent of output.

If emissions take a lower track, and warming is limited to 2.2 C (4 F), the cost in 2050 would be $105 billion, or 0.06 percent of worldwide GDP, rising to $612 billion, or 0.11 percent, by 2100.

"This is not a scaremongering forecast," says the report.

It cautions that these figures do not take into account the bill for small island states swamped by rising seas. Nor do they include the impact of warming on the ocean's basic processes, such as nutrient recycling, which are essential to life.

"The ocean has always been thought of as the epitome of unconquerable, inexhaustible vastness and variety, but this ‘plenty more fish in the sea' image may be its worst enemy," notes the report.

Explore further

Tropical cyclones to cause greater damage

(c) 2012 AFP

Citation: Ocean climate change damage to cost $2 trillion (2012, March 21) retrieved 24 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2012-03-ocean-climate-trillion.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 21, 2012
"The estimate by the Stockholm Environment Institute is based on the assumption that climate-altering carbon emissions continue their upward spiral without a pause."
No. It's based on the assumption that the upward spiral of carbon dioxide emissions will affect the climate as the models predict. This is looking rather unlikely as there has been no warming for 15 years in defiance of these very models

Mar 21, 2012
Vendicar is lying about Gregor being "caught in a lie".

This is due to Scott being too, ah, insufficiently educated, perceptive, cognitive, or swift, to comprehend that physorg.com board software can (and did) mess up a link without any help from Gregor. Or he's disingenuous and crooked enough to actually know that, and make the false accusation anyway.

He then flies off and advertises his lack of understanding by spamming unrelated threads with accusations that one would be tempted to call "baseless" except they're actually based on his own error, not Gregor's.

It's called "opening your mouth and removing all doubt".

Sadly, he won't change. He's been doing this for at least 15 years (at a glance), all over the place:


This is deep, long-term crazy.

Mar 21, 2012
gregor - http://data.giss....aphs_v3/ and let us know how you can possibly say that there has been no warming since 1997. Thanks. David.

Nice one david, glad to see someone still exists in reality.

I've seen skeptics say all that nasa data is from satellites which use inferior telemetry or logistical standpoint, it's amazing the ways people will try to think their way out of a box.

It's obvious that we are changing and destroying the surface and atmosphere of our planet at an ever increasing rate and that we have already passed thresholds some would consider "extremely disastrous".

To put it in perspective we may be at the start of a release of methane on a scale that has not happened since the end-permian era. There's no telling what effects it may have. Here's hoping we aren't about to become dinosaurs. See the 6th paragraph:

Mar 21, 2012
Keep posting @dir. That is a great link. These deniers are purposely here to stir the debate, delay and defer regulation, and cause fights where they can. And unfortunately there are here.

Chin-up, and fight on.

Mar 22, 2012
Anyone have any idea of the tuition costs at the paleoconservatards' schools for denialist trolls?

Or, is it PIK? :lol:

Mar 22, 2012
easier to make the present warmer...

But then again, since there was not little ice age according to mann (see hocky stick) the past is so fragile as to be a mere fiction I would think.

Oh by the way as I do believe in the fact of the LIA I understand it is warmer now.. and good thing too.

Mar 22, 2012
people awho are grounded in an obsolete world view

Yeah I agree; these guys do have an obsolete world view, they would prefer earth dead to the dollar.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more