Abstract:Efforts to mitigate global warming are often justified through calculations of the economic damages that may occur absent mitigation. The earliest such damage estimates were speculative mathematical representations, but some more recent studies provide empirical estimates of damages on economic growth that accumulate over time and result in larger damages than those estimated previously. These heightened damage estimates have been used to suggest that limiting global warming this century to 1.5 °C avoids tens of trillions of 2010 US$ in damage to gross world product relative to limiting global warming to 2.0 °C. However, in order to estimate the net effect on gross world product, mitigation costs associated with decarbonizing the world's energy systems must be subtracted from the benefits of avoided damages. Here, we follow previous work to parameterize the aforementioned heightened damage estimates into a schematic global climate-economy model (DICE) so that they can be weighed against mainstream estimates of mitigation costs in a unified framework. We investigate the net effect of mitigation on gross world product through finite time horizons under a spectrum of exogenously defined levels of mitigation stringency. We find that even under heightened damage estimates, the additional mitigation costs of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C (relative to 2.0 °C) are higher than the additional avoided damages this century under most parameter combinations considered. Specifically, using our central parameter values, limiting global warming to 1.5 °C results in a net loss of gross world product of roughly forty trillion US$ relative to 2 °C and achieving either 1.5 °C or 2.0 °C require a net sacrifice of gross world product, relative to a no-mitigation case, though 2100 with a 3%/year discount rate. However, the benefits of more stringent mitigation accumulate over time and our calculations indicate that stabilizing warming at 1.5 °C or 2.0 °C by 2100 would eventually confer net benefits of thousands of trillions of US$ in gross world product by 2300. The results emphasize the temporal asymmetry between the costs of mitigation and benefits of avoided damages from climate change and thus the long timeframe for which climate change mitigation investment pays off.

Damage Function Uncertainty Increases the Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide

Upward revision of the social costs of methane and nitrous oxide

The social cost of methane: theory and applications

Equity is more important for the social cost of methane than climate uncertainty

Social Costs of Methane and Carbon Dioxide in a Tipping Climate

Comprehensive Evidence Implies a Higher Social Cost of CO2

The Social Cost of Ozone-Related Mortality Impacts From Methane Emissions

Including climate system feedbacks in calculations of the social cost of methane

Approximate calculations of the net economic impact of global warming mitigation targets under heightened damage estimates

Marginal Damage of Methane Emissions: Ozone Impacts on Agriculture

An Assessment of the Climate Damage Costs of European Short-Lived Climate Forcers

Social cost of carbon under a carbon-neutral pathway

The Social Cost of Carbon with Economic and Climate Risks

The social cost of carbon dioxide under climate-economy feedbacks and temperature variability

Economic consequences of the spatial and temporal variability of climate change

Disutility of climate change damages may warrant much stricter climate targets

Global climate damage in 2 °C and 1.5 °C scenarios based on BCC_SESM model in IAM framework

A Multi-Model Assessment of Climate Change Damage in China and the World

Country-level social cost of carbon

Improving the social cost of nitrous oxide

The social costs of hydrofluorocarbons and the benefits from their expedited phase-down