The future costs of methane emissions (original) (raw)
Related papers
Including climate system feedbacks in calculations of the social cost of methane
arXiv: Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, 2020
Integrated assessment models (IAMs) are valuable tools that consider the interactions between socioeconomic systems and the climate system. Decision-makers and policy analysts employ IAMs to calculate the marginalized monetary cost of climate damages resulting from an incremental emission of a greenhouse gas. Used within the context of regulating anthropogenic methane emissions, this metric is called the social cost of methane (SC-CH$_4$). Because several key IAMs used for social cost estimation contain a simplified model structure that prevents the endogenous modeling of non-CO$_2$ greenhouse gases, very few estimates of the SC-CH$_4$ exist. For this reason, IAMs should be updated to better represent methane cycle dynamics that are consistent with comprehensive Earth System Models. We include feedbacks of climate change on the methane cycle to estimate the SC-CH$_4$. Our expected value for the SC-CH$_4$ is \$1163/t-CH$_4$ under a constant 3.0% discount rate. This represents a 44% i...
Frontiers in Psychology, 2019
Greenhouse-gas emissions are indirectly causing future deaths by multiple mechanisms. For example, reduced food and water supplies will exacerbate hunger, disease, violence, and migration. How will anthropogenic global warming (AGW) affect global mortality due to poverty around and beyond 2100? Roughly, how much burned fossil carbon corresponds to one future death? What are the psychological, medical, political, and economic implications? Predicted death tolls are crucial for policy formulation, but uncertainty increases with temporal distance from the present and estimates may be biased. Orderof-magnitude estimates should refer to literature from diverse relevant disciplines. The carbon budget for 2°C AGW (roughly 10 12 tonnes carbon) will indirectly cause roughly 10 9 future premature deaths (10% of projected maximum global population), spread over one to two centuries. This zeroth-order prediction is relative and in addition to existing preventable death rates. It lies between likely best-and worst-case scenarios of roughly 3 × 10 8 and 3 × 10 9 , corresponding to plus/minus one standard deviation on a logarithmic scale in a Gaussian probability distribution. It implies that one future premature death is caused every time roughly 1,000 (300-3,000) tonnes of carbon are burned. Therefore, any fossil-fuel project that burns millions of tons of carbon is probably indirectly killing thousands of future people. The prediction may be considered valid, accounting for multiple indirect links between AGW and death rates in a top-down approach, but unreliable due to the uncertainty of climate change feedback and interactions between physical, biological, social, and political climate impacts (e.g., ecological cascade effects and co-extinction). Given universal agreement on the value of human lives, a death toll of this unprecedented magnitude must be avoided at all costs. As a clear political message, the "1,000-tonne rule" can be used to defend human rights, especially in developing countries, and to clarify that climate change is primarily a human rights issue.
Estimates of the damage costs of climate change: Part 1: Benchmark estimates
Environmental & Resource Economics, 2002
A selection of the potential impacts of climate change – on agriculture,forestry, unmanaged ecosystems, sea level rise, human mortality, energyconsumption, and water resources – are estimated and valued in monetaryterms. Estimates are derived from globally comprehensive, internallyconsistent studies using GCM based scenarios. An underestimate of theuncertainty is given. New impact studies can be included following themeta-analytical methods described here. A 1 °C increase in the globalmean surface air temperature would have, on balance, a positive effect onthe OECD, China, and the Middle East, and a negative effect on othercountries. Confidence intervals of regionally aggregated impacts, however,include both positive and negative impacts for all regions. Global estimatesdepend on the aggregation rule. Using a simple sum, world impact of a1 °C warming would be a positive 2% of GDP, with a standarddeviation of 1%. Using globally averaged values, world impact would be anegative 3% (standard deviation: 1%). Using equity weighting, worldimpact would amount to 0% (standard deviation: 1%).
2015
Running Head: CH4 AND CO2 A COMPARATIVE ON CLIMATE IMPACTS Carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) are both potent greenhouse gases that exert positive 'radiative forcing' on the climate system, thereby causing rapid warming. A critical analysis of three major arguments presented below includes measures advocating exclusive emission controls of either predominantly CO 2 over a medium to long period or exclusively CH4 & other non-CO2 GHGs over a short term. A third scholarly paper explores the fundamental nature of the climate system as a 'complex evolving system' concluding that a portfolio-based or "basket" approach will result in maximum benefits. The key finding of this paper is that neither gas can be interchangeably removed in place of the other, owing to the complex nature of the climate system and its intricate feedback circuits. However, the same inherent fragility of the climate system ensures that small active measures will have exponential results, underlying a measure of hope for scientists, policymakers and the public.