Carbon's economic damage costlier than thought based on current science

November 21, 2017 by Brian Wallheimer, Purdue University
Ball-and-stick model of carbon dioxide. Credit: Wikipedia

The data used to calculate the damage that an additional ton of carbon dioxide has on the global economy has long relied on outdated science. Recent updates modeled by the University of California, Davis and Purdue University raise the calculations of those costs significantly and change the outlook on climate change from a positive for agriculture to a negative.

When the most recent science is brought to bear, one of the major models used to calculate the social cost of (SCC) moves the figure to $19.70, an increase of 129 percent.

State and federal government agencies often use the social cost of carbon in cost-benefit analyses for projects that stand to add to the atmosphere. It is meant to calculate the damage a ton of additional carbon dioxide will have on society and the economy, including agricultural productivity, human health, property due to flooding and energy costs.

Three integrated assessment models are widely used for the analysis of environmental policy, but only one of these, the FUND , explicitly focuses on damages to the agricultural sector. However, these calculations of damages in agriculture currently rely on very old data.

"The underlying studies date back to publications in the 1990s, but it really dates back to science from the 1980s," said Thomas Hertel, Purdue distinguished professor of agricultural economics, whose findings were published in Nature Communications. "It was optimistic on the benefits to agriculture from rising temperatures."

Early studies suggested that moderate amounts of warming would be positive for agricultural crops, and since an increase in carbon dioxide can improve plant health, adding more to the atmosphere was considered beneficial. The SCC for agriculture calculated using the FUND model puts these damages at -$2.70, a negative number indicating overall benefits from CO2 emissions.

"The very early studies tended to show that the effects of warmer temperatures were not very severe and would be more than compensated by the beneficial effects of higher ," said Frances Moore, an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at UC Davis and lead author on the study. "Over the last few decades, as more work has gone into understanding how climate change might affect crop yields, science has found that hot temperatures themselves have large negative effects on crop yields."

Moore and collaborators updated the agricultural and FUND-derived SCC numbers by analyzing and combining over 1,000 more recent data points from 56 studies included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international organization that assesses the science related to climate change.

Based on an analysis of the data, instead of an additional ton of carbon benefiting the agriculture sector by $2.70, it damages the economy by $8.50. That increase takes the SCC to $19.70/ton under the FUND model. Averaging multiple models puts the overall SCC in the range of $40/ton. The authors didn't calculate how the overall average would change, but it would certainly increase, making additional carbon more costly to the global economy.

"This large proportional increase in the SCC is particularly noticeable because we are only updating damages from one economic sector. The SCC in this model is determined by damages in 14 different sectors," Moore said. "The fact that updating just one sector has such a large effect on the overall SCC is striking."

Hertel added, "This is a small part of the , so it's surprising that when we put this all together, the social cost of carbon for the whole economy actually doubles. It makes you wonder about the other pieces."

Co-author Uris Baldos, a Purdue research assistant professor in agricultural economics, and Hertel have run the data through the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), a computer model available to researchers around the world for quantitative analysis of international policy issues. They plan to publish findings from the model using the new data to calculate localized predictions for the economic effects of climate change. For example, he said net exporters of agricultural products that have cooler temperatures currently, like Canada, will benefit from climate change for modest levels of warming. Net agricultural importers with already hot temperatures, like Brazil and Mexico, will be adversely affected by near-term . They are also developing online tools to help visualize and further explore the findings of their research: https://mygeohub.org/groups/glass.

Explore further: Video: Pricing carbon emissions

More information: Frances C. Moore et al. New science of climate change impacts on agriculture implies higher social cost of carbon, Nature Communications (2017). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-01792-x

Related Stories

Video: Pricing carbon emissions

November 15, 2017

If we want to alter the trajectory of global climate change, a single powerful tool can generate action to reduce greenhouse gases: price incentives.

Social cost of climate change too low, scientists say

January 12, 2015

The economic damage caused by a ton of CO2 emissions-often referred to as the "social cost of carbon-could actually be six times higher than the value that the United States uses to guide current energy regulations, and possibly ...

Recommended for you

Rainfall's natural variation hides climate change signal

February 22, 2018

New research from The Australian National University (ANU) and ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science suggests natural rainfall variation is so great that it could take a human lifetime for significant climate ...

Seasonal patterns in the Amazon explained

February 22, 2018

Environmental scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Brookhaven National Laboratory have led an international collaboration to improve satellite observations of tropical forests.

7 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Anonym
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2017
Oh, Mann, talk about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

I guess no one is getting paid to quantify the positive economic effects of CO2 emissions. No, because a simple cost-benefit analysis would show: The WHOLE global economy --- virtually all global output and the resulting economic well-being of nearly everyone on the planet --- is directly dependent on CO2 emissions.

But, forget that! The End Times Hypothesis (thanks, Malthusian Death Cult) and outcome-based "science" (researchers find what they are paid to look for, or they don't get paid for long) show we're all doomed if we don't stop living so well.

It's bunk. When belts get tightened, it's the middle class that is told to suck it up. The big-name millionaire Doomsters (Gore and Bloomberg come to mind) aren't eschewing air travel to save the planet, or dumping their waterfront mansions in anticipation of rising sea levels. That is because they know it's bunk, too.

avandesande2000
1.8 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2017
I suppose nothing good can come from global warming...http://climateand...s-sahel/
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2017
virtually all global output and the resulting economic well-being of nearly everyone on the planet --- is directly dependent on CO2 emissions

That's a bold, bold statement (that sorta lacks any kind of basis in reality).
Care to back that up with...anything?
TrollBane
5 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2017
"I guess no one is getting paid to quantify the positive economic effects of CO2 emissions" Your 'guess' is really just a whiny complaint that nobody will do your cherry picking, insinuation and propagandizing for you.
somefingguy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2017
virtually all global output and the resulting economic well-being of nearly everyone on the planet --- is directly dependent on CO2 emissions


That's a bold, bold statement (that sorta lacks any kind of basis in reality).
Care to back that up with...anything?


I think, and I may be a little optimistic here, that he's talking about the processes which generate CO2 (cars, military contracts, any factories and manufacturing) and thus correlates the emission with prosperity?
FM79
not rated yet Nov 22, 2017

That's a bold, bold statement (that sorta lacks any kind of basis in reality).
Care to back that up with...anything?


Yes, simple facts. Industrialization and progress require energy, other for electricity, transportation or other needs. Why do you think the high CO2 emission started in the first place?

Now this does not mean we should continue to produce CO2 as in the past, but CO2 emissions are basically correlated with industrialization.

Of course we should have long switched to cleaner energy sources...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2017
I think, and I may be a little optimistic here, that he's talking about the processes which generate CO2 (cars, military contracts, any factories and manufacturing) and thus correlates the emission with prosperity?

Since alternatives are now available there's no real dependence anymore. We shouldn't act as if we're locked into one MO forever, because we're not.

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

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.