Climate change in news media across the globe - Valerie Hase
valerie-hase com/publication/climatechange_gec/Climatechange_GEC pdf
6 sept 2021 Climate change challenges countries across the world Its primary impacts include changing temperatures, ocean acidification, or detri-
Climate Change Around the World
www nber org/system/files/working_papers/w30338/w30338 pdf
Climate Change Around the World Per Krusell and Anthony A Smith Jr NBER Working Paper No 30338 August 2022 JEL No H23,Q54,R13 ABSTRACT
Chapter 20 GLOBAL CLiMATE CHANGE
www who int/docs/default-source/climate-change/publication---global-climate-change-comparative-analysis pdf
projections of climate change, related to unmitigated future emissions of throughout the world at a fine spatial resolution Therefore, a single dis-
Climate Change Around the World
perseus iies su se/~pkrus/montreal_per pdf
Climate Change Around the World Per Krusell effects of climate change and climate policy How will region ?'s climate respond to global warming?
Historical Overview of Climate Change Science - IPCC
www ipcc ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4-wg1-chapter1 pdf
history of climate change science using a wide-ranging subset of stations around the world, some with data starting in the early 1800s
Climate Change 2021 - IPCC
www ipcc ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final pdf
Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe Evidence of observed changes in
Climate Change: Evidence & Causes 2020 - Royal Society
royalsociety org/-/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes pdf
Scientific evidence continues to be gathered around the world Some things have become clearer and new insights have emerged For example, the period of slower
Fighting climate change together - European Commission
ec europa eu/clima/sites/clima/files/youth/docs/youth_magazine_en pdf
Emissions from the global shipping industry amount to around 1 billion tonnes of CO2 a year, accounting for roughly 3 of the world's total greenhouse gas
Climate change and food security: risks and responses
www fao org/3/i5188e/I5188E pdf
many regions of the world, increased water scarcity under climate change such as grain, vegetables, fruits and wood that are traded across the globe
52498_7montreal_per.pdf
Climate Change Around the World
Per Krusell
Institute for International Economic Studies, NBER, CEPR
Joint with Anthony A. Smith, Jr.
Yale University, NBER
World Congress
Montr´eal
Aoˆut, 2015
The project
I Construct global model of economy-climate interactions featuring a high degree of geographic resolution (1 ◦1◦ regions). I
Use the model as a laboratory to quantify the
distributional effects of climate change and climate policy. I If a set of regions imposes a carbon tax (or a quantity restriction on emissions), how does the path of global emissions respond? Which regions gain and which lose, and by how much?
The data
I
Unit of analysis: 1
◦1◦cells containing land. I The model contains19,000 regions (or cell-countries). I Nordhaus's G-Econ database: gross domestic product (GDP) and population for all such cells in 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005.
I Matsuura and Willmott: gridded (0.5◦0.5◦) monthly terrestrial temperature data for 1900-2008.
Global average land temperature (by year)
Year 1901
19201940196019802008
8.8 9.2 9.6 10 10.3
Nordhaus's G-Econ globe with output by regions
same data on our map
Log of GDP in 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -9.2-6.3-4.8-3.9-3.1-2.2-1.4-0.40.8 6.6 temperature map of the world
Average temperature (1901-1920)
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -31 -7.7-1.24.2 9.6 15.821 24.126.130.8
Natural-science background I: the climate
Climate summarized by average global temperatureT: departure from preindustrial level. The logic behind role of humans: IGreenhouse gases (e.g., CO2) in atmosphere: let sunlight through but hinder outgoing heat radiation from earth. I
So add CO
2)"more heat stays". Effect onT?
1.
How much less energy out: Arrhenius, 1896.F=η
ln2 ln(S S) ; I
F: "forcing", reduced energy out
I
S: current CO2concentration,¯S: initial level
I in atmosphere now:S= 840GtC; preindustrial:¯S= 600GtC. 2.
Energy budget: energy in>energy out)earth heats.
I dT dt =σ(F κT); hotter planet emits "feedback" heat κT. I Preindustrial period:F= 0,T= 0; after that, rise inF. I
New equilibrium:T1=F/κ.
)T∞=λ ln2 ln(S S) ;λη/κ, called "climate sensitivity".
Significant uncertainty:λ3◦C1.5◦C.
Natural-science background II: the carbon cycle
Carbon cycle: how emissions of CO
2enter/exit atmosphere. Key:Iemissions spread globally very quickly ("global externality")
Idepreciation structure:
I smooth, but very slow; some stays "forever" in atmosphere I nonlinear (and feedback from higher temperature) but linear approximation not so bad.
Numbers:
I emissions: 10GtC/year (recallS= 840Gtc) I ∆St4.5GtC/year I estimated remaining carbon: oil+gas 300GtC, coal much bigger (>3,000GtC? Rogner, 1997); I hence coal is key! To summarize: emissions!carbon in atmosphere!forcing! temperature. Bad if externality negative: if higherTcauses "damages".
Integrated assessment models
Pioneered by Nordhaus (DICE, RICE). Quantitative theory, computational.
Key components:
I climate system (as above) I carbon cycle (as above) I economic model of emissions AND damages Economic model: needs to be dynamic, forward-looking, possibly allowing stochastics (temperature variations, disasters). Here: I climate system more elaborate I economic model and damages new.
Some relevant background from past work
Model development:
I a number of our earlier papers on this can be viewed as "pilot studies" for present work I in particular, Golosov, Hassler, K, and Tsyvinski (GHKT; Econometrica, 2014) develops simple one-sector DSGE setting. Build present structure on earlier insights: one-region version of present model very close to GHKT.
Overview for remainder of talk
1. our climate modeling 2. our damage specification 3. economic model 4. calibration, computation 5. results 6. conclusions, future
Our climate modeling
How will regionℓ's climate respond to global warming? I Answer given by complex global and regional climate models. But not feasible to combine these with economic model. I Therefore, use "pattern scaling": statistical description of temperature in a given region as a function of a single state variable - average global temperature. I Capture sensitivity of temperature in regionℓto global temperatureTin a coefficent (linear structure; standard). I With help of climate scientists, use runs of (highly) complex climate models into the future to estimate sensitivities. global map with estimated sensitivities: how much temperature goes up everywhere ifTrises by one degree
Sensitivity to changes in global temperature
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080
0.40.91 1.11.21.31.41.62.15.2
Our damage speci cation
What are the damages in regionℓas a result of global warming?IDamage measurements: overall, weakest part of
climate-economy evidence package, particularly for regional assessments. I
Our approach:
I formulate a damage functionDof local temperaturethat is I common across allℓ I like Nordhaus's, a TFP drag I
U-shaped, with three parameters...
I ...which are estimated to match, when aggregated across all ℓ, the global damages estimated by Nordhaus: I
Nordhaus's formulation: convex
I three points used: at 1 degree centigrade, 0.3% output drag; at 2.5, 1.8%; and at 5, 6.8%. I Nordhaus's global estimates not much different from those of others (IPCC has recent summary). I Desmet and Rossi-Hansberg (2014): also a common U-shape, spatial application. picture of 1 minus estimated U-shaped damage function, as function of local temperature
Damage function: productivity vs. temperature
Fraction of optimum
Temperature (degrees centigrade)-31-20-10011.12031 .02 .25 .5 .75 1 gdp distribution across temperatures (you see that most output is near the optimum)
Share of world GDP vs. temperature
Share of GDP
Temperature (degrees centigrade)-31-20-10011.12031 0
4.53732
population distribution across temperatures (similar graph, but less concentrated near optimum)
Share of world population vs. temperature
Share of population
Temperature (degrees centigrade)-31-20-10011.12031 0
5.67524
gdp distribution across 1 minus damages Share of world GDP vs. productivity (as a fraction of optimum)
Share of GDP
Productivity.25.5.75.9.995
.009839
21.5733
population distribution across 1 minus damages Share of world population vs. productivity (as a fraction of optimum)
Share of population
Productivity.25.5.75.9.995
.007063
10.4166
global map with 1 minus damage coefficients Damage coefficient x 100 (at temperature in 1901-1920)
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080
2 16.943.553 59.267.177 88 96.5100
The economic model
IForward-looking consumers and firms in each region determine their consumption, saving, and energy use.
INo migration.
I Neoclassical production technologies, different TFPs both exogenously and due to climate. I Energy as an input: coal, produced locally, at constant marginal cost (no profits). I Coal slowly, exogenously replaced by (same-cost) green tech. I
Market structure: two cases.
I Autarky (regions only linked via emission externality). I Unrestricted borrowing/lending (world interest rate clears market). I Summary: like Aiyagari (1994) and our previous work, though no shocks in this version. I Adaptation: consumption smoothing and, in case with international markets, capital mobility.
Regional problem
In a recursive equilibrium, regionℓsolvesIvt(ω,A,¯k,S;ℓ) = max k′,b′[U(c) +βv t+1 (ω′,A′,¯k′,
S′
;ℓ)], s.t. c=ω k′ q t (
¯k,
S )b′ ω ′= maxe′[F(k′,(1 D(Tℓ( S ′ )))A′,e′) pe′)] + (1 δ)k′+b′ A ′= (1 +g)A ¯ k′=H t (
¯k,
S ) S ′ = Φ t(¯k, S ) . I
Can be interpreted as decentralized equilibrium.
I Set up to deal with shocks, aggregate and/or local.
Calibration
Economic parameters:
I Annual time step, log utility,δ= 10%,g= 1%,β= 0.985. I Production functionFis CES inkα((1 D)AL)1-αandBe, with elasticity 0.1 (we do robustness). I Initial distribution of region-specific capital and level of productivity chosen to: (1) match regional GDP per capita in
1990 and; (2) equalize MPK across regions.
I Price of coal andBchosen to match: (1) total carbon emissions in 1990; and (2) energy share of 5% along a balanced growth path. I
Green energy replaces coal slowly (logistic).
Computation
IRichard Feynman: Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! I Transition + heterogeneity = nontrivial fixed-point problem. I Use mostly well-known methods but heterogeneity vast: I exogenous TFP I wealth/capital I ℓcaptures entire path of future regional TFP endogenous to climate (this feature NOT one-dimensional); I we don't actually solve 19,235 DP problems I but so much heterogeneity that we need to solve 700 DPs I and then nonlinearly interpolate decision rules between 700 "types"
Experiments
I
Laissez-faire.
I Main policy experiment: all regions impose a modest common carbon tax, financed locally (no transfers implied). Throughout: focus on relative effects, not aggregates.
Main ndings
I Climate change affects regionsverydifferently. Stakes big at regional level. I Though a tax on carbon would affect welfare positively in some average sense, huge disparity of views: 55% of regions for tax, 45% against. I Findings almost identical for two extreme market structures (autarky and international capital markets). movie: percentage change in gdp, laissez-faire
Percentage change in GDP: 2000 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8
Percentage change in GDP: 2010 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8
Percentage change in GDP: 2020 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8
Percentage change in GDP: 2030 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8
Percentage change in GDP: 2040 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8
Percentage change in GDP: 2050 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8
Percentage change in GDP: 2060 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8
Percentage change in GDP: 2070 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8
Percentage change in GDP: 2080 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8
Percentage change in GDP: 2090 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8
Percentage change in GDP: 2100 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8
Percentage change in GDP: 2110 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8
Percentage change in GDP: 2120 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8
Percentage change in GDP: 2130 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8
Percentage change in GDP: 2140 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8
Percentage change in GDP: 2150 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8
Percentage change in GDP: 2160 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8
Percentage change in GDP: 2170 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8
Percentage change in GDP: 2180 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8
Percentage change in GDP: 2190 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8
Percentage change in GDP: 2200 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94.9 -52.4 -44.6 -37.4 -26.2 -8.2 27.4 122.1 427.5 6966.8 movie: level change in gdp, laissez-faire
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2000 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2010 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2020 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2030 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2040 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2050 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2060 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2070 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2080 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2090 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2100 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2110 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2120 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2130 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2140 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2150 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2160 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2170 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2180 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2190 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314
Change in GDP (in millions of $): 2200 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -132869-427 -95.6 -26 -6.4 -0.6 4.3 39.9 193.1 69314 pictures: map of winners and losers from tax, full equalization (then autarky) Welfare gains from taxation (with free capital movement)
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -10.8-4 -1.8 -0.6 0 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.1 2.9
Welfare gains from taxation (in autarchy)
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -10.8-4 -1.8 -0.6 0 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.1 2.9 picture: welfare gains from free capital movements (laissez-faire) Welfare gains from free capital movement (without taxes) (as a percentage of consumption)
Fraction
Percentage of consumption.00283519.9739
0 .282834 movie: percentage change in gdp, taxes
Percentage change in GDP: 2000 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Percentage change in GDP: 2010 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Percentage change in GDP: 2020 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Percentage change in GDP: 2030 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Percentage change in GDP: 2040 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Percentage change in GDP: 2050 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Percentage change in GDP: 2060 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Percentage change in GDP: 2070 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Percentage change in GDP: 2080 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Percentage change in GDP: 2090 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Percentage change in GDP: 2100 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Percentage change in GDP: 2110 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Percentage change in GDP: 2120 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Percentage change in GDP: 2130 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Percentage change in GDP: 2140 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Percentage change in GDP: 2150 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Percentage change in GDP: 2160 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Percentage change in GDP: 2170 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Percentage change in GDP: 2180 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Percentage change in GDP: 2190 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Percentage change in GDP: 2200 vs. 1990
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080 -94 -50.9 -43.3 -36.2 -25.1 -7.6 27.5 118.8 408.7 6691.4
Conclusions
Take-away:
I Results from our model: climate change is about relative effects much more than about average effects! I In particular, huge disagreements about taxes (so huge transfer payments needed to compensate those losing from carbon tax). I Methodological insight: we thought the market structure (because it admits more or less adaptation) would be important for the results, but it isn't.
Some caveats
I On one hand, damages "too local" and symmetric: no common aggregate damages. There are potentially such effects: I world technology development (level or growth) can be impacted; I biodiversity, ocean acidification, ...; I spillovers through trade, migration, tourism, ... I On other hand, maybe not enough regional heterogeneity yet (rural vs. urban, manufacturing vs. agriculture, ...).
Near-future follow-up
Within present model/paper:
IHow does climate change influence migration pressure at borders? Easy to compute. (PICTURE!) I
Heterogeneous taxes.
Applications:
I Temperature shocks; can be problematic at higherTs because of extreme weather events (programs written, parallelizing done, some experiments run). I
Rising volatility as globe warms.
I Agricultural sector and food supplies (includes adding precipitation). I ... Log of lifetime wealth (per effective unit of labor)
Longitude
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Latitude
-80-60-40-20020406080
3.64 4.14.14.24.44.65 5.78.4