Estimates of the cost vary widely. One recent study found that keeping warming to 2 degrees Celsius would require a total investment of between $ 4 trillion and $ 60 trillion, with a median estimate of $ 16 trillion, while keeping warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius could cost between $ 10 trillion and $ 100 trillion, with a median estimate of $ 30 trillion. (For reference, the entire world economy was about $ 88 trillion in 2019.) Other studies have found that reaching net zero will require annual investments ranging from less than 1.5 percent of global gross domestic product to as much as 4 percent. That’s a lot, but within the range of historical energy investments in countries like the US
Now, let’s consider the costs of unchecked climate change, which will fall hardest on the most vulnerable. These include damage to property and infrastructure from sea-level rise and extreme weather, death and sickness linked to natural disasters, pollution and infectious disease, reduced agricultural yields and lost labor productivity because of rising temperatures, decreased water availability and increased energy costs, and species extinction and habitat destruction. Dr. Hsiang, the UC Berkeley economist, describes it as “death by a thousand cuts.”
As a result, climate damages are hard to quantify. Moody’s Analytics estimates that even 2 degrees Celsius of warming will cost the world $ 69 trillion by 2100, and economists expect the toll to keep rising with the temperature. In a recent survey, economists estimated the cost would equal 5 percent of global GDP at 3 degrees Celsius of warming (our trajectory under current policies) and 10 percent for 5 degrees Celsius. Other research indicates that if current warming trends continue, global GDP per capita will decrease between 7 percent and 23 percent by the end of the century – an economic blow equivalent to multiple coronavirus pandemics every year. And some fear these are vast underestimates.
Already, studies suggest that climate change has slashed incomes in the poorest countries by as much as 30 percent and reduced global agricultural productivity by 21 percent since 1961. Extreme weather events have also racked up a large bill. In 2020, in the United States alone, climate-related disasters like hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires caused nearly $ 100 billion in damages to businesses, property and infrastructure, compared to an average of $ 18 billion per year in the 1980s.
Given the steep price of inaction, many economists say that addressing climate change is a better deal. It’s like that old saying: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In this case, limiting warming will greatly reduce future damage and inequality caused by climate change. It will also produce so-called co-benefits, like saving one million lives every year by reducing air pollution, and millions more from eating healthier, climate-friendly diets. Some studies even find that meeting the Paris Agreement goals could create jobs and increase global GDP And, of course, reining in climate change will spare many species and ecosystems upon which humans depend – and which many people believe to have their own innate value.
The challenge is that we need to reduce emissions now to avoid damages later, which requires big investments over the next few decades. And the longer we delay, the more we will pay to meet the Paris goals. A recent analysis found that reaching net-zero by 2050 would cost the US almost twice as much if we waited until 2030 instead of acting now. But even if we miss the Paris target, the economics still make a strong case for climate action, because every additional degree of warming will cost us more – in dollars, and in lives.
Back to top.
Veronica Penney contributed reporting.
Illustration photographs by Esther Horvath, Max Whittaker, David Maurice Smith and Talia Herman for The New York Times; Esther Horvath / Alfred-Wegener-Institut