From the European Commission Joint Research Centre
New study quantifies the effects of climate change in Europe
If no further action is taken and global temperature increases by 3.5°C, climate damages in the EU could amount to at least €190 billion, a net welfare loss of 1.8% of its current GDP. Several weather-related extremes could roughly double their average frequency. As a consequence, heat-related deaths could reach about 200 000, the cost of river flood damages could exceed €10 billion and 8000 km2 of forest could burn in southern Europe. The number of people affected by droughts could increase by a factor of seven and coastal damage, due to sea-level rise, could more than triple. These economic assessments are based on scenarios where the climate expected by the end of the century (2080s) occurs in the current population and economic landscape.
These are just some of the findings of a new report by the European Commission’s in-house science service, the Joint Research Centre, which has analysed the impacts of climate change in 9 different sectors: agriculture, river floods, coasts, tourism, energy, droughts, forest fires, transport infrastructure and human health. The report also includes a pilot study on habitat suitability of forest tree species.
Connie Hedegaard, European Commissioner for Climate Action said: “No action is clearly the most expensive solution of all. Why pay for the damages when we can invest in reducing our climate impacts and becoming a competitive low-carbon economy? Taking action and taking a decision on the 2030 climate and energy framework in October, will bring us just there and make Europe ready for the fight against climate change.
Expected biophysical impacts (such as agriculture yields, river floods, transport infrastructure losses) have been integrated into an economic model in order to assess the implications in terms of household welfare. Premature mortality accounts for more than half of the overall welfare losses (€120 billion), followed by impacts on coasts (€42 billion) and agriculture (€18 billion).
The results also confirm the geographically unbalanced distribution of climate change related damages. For the purpose of this study, the European Union is divided into 5 regions. What the study identifies as southern Europe and central Europe south (see background for details) would bear most of the burden (- 70%), whereas the northern Europe region would experience the lowest welfare losses (- 1%), followed by the UK and Ireland region (- 5%) and central Europe North (- 24%).
However, the report also shows that welfare impacts in one region would have transboundary effects elsewhere. For example, the welfare loss due to sea level rise in the central Europe North region or to the agricultural losses in southern Europe would have a spill over effect on the whole Europe due to economic interlinkages.
These results relate to no action taken to mitigate global warming. The project also looks at the scenario where strong greenhouse gas reduction policies are implemented and temperature rise is kept below 2 degrees Celsius (the current international target). In this case, impacts of climate change would reduce by €60 billion, a 30% decrease. In addition, some significant biophysical impacts would be substantially reduced: the increased burned area would halve and 23 000 annual heat-related deaths would be spared.
This considered, further effects should be taken into account when assessing the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, not modelled in PESETA II. Firstly, there would be a reduced risk of fundamental impacts due to extremes and abrupt climate change. Secondly, there would be benefits associated with lower EU energy imports, as a 2°C scenario would lead to a substantial reduction in net energy imports in the EU. Thirdly, the additional benefits due to lower air pollution of the 2°C scenario can be also very large. Last but not least, the difference in impacts between the Reference simulation and the 2°C scenario would get bigger as time passes beyond 2100.
If future population and economic growth projections would be taken into account, the negative effects would multiply. The study simulated this for the impacts of river floods and results show that they could multiply tenfold.
Background
The PESETA I (2009) and PESETA II (Projection of Economic impacts of climate change in Sectors of the EU based on bottom-up Analysis) studies investigate the sectoral and regional patterns of climate change impacts across Europe.
The research integrates what is known on climate impacts in the various natural science disciplines into the economic analysis. It takes into consideration current projections on estimated CO2 emissions, the potential range of climate variations (temperature, rain, wind, solar radiation, air humidity) and the biophysical impacts (agriculture yields, river floods, and transport infrastructure losses) to assess the economic burden of potential climate scenarios.
The project covers the climate impacts over the period 2071-2100, compared to 1961-1990 and considers climate impacts in five large EU regions: northern Europe (Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Denmark), UK & Ireland (UK and Ireland), central Europe North (Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, and Poland), central Europe South (France, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, and Romania), and southern Europe (Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, and Bulgaria).
Although the coverage of impacts is broad, it should be stressed that the study underestimates climate damages in Europe for a number of reasons. For instance, the coverage of climate extremes effects is limited; some impacts such as damages to biodiversity or ecosystem losses cannot be monetised and have therefore not be considered when calculating the welfare loss. Last but not least, abrupt climate change or the consequences of passing climate tipping points (such as the Arctic sea-ice melting) are not integrated in the analysis.
Links:
News release: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/jrc_20140625_newsrelease_climate-change_en.pdf
Climate Impacts in Europe. The JRC PESETA II project: http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=7181
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is what happens when you give too much power to environmentalists. The odds of that report being right in its predictions are nil but still all the politicians and bureocrats are going to dance to it. Europe is in such a sorry state that it makes me weep 🙁
Why do in get the impression that they took the most extreme, least data-supported predictions and tallied them up without offsetting any benefits.
For example, heat deaths will increase, but any reference to deaths from cold, which today kills far more people than heat?
And there will be costs from both more flooding AND more drought. Leaving aside how both these occur, did they offset the benefit of increased water against the cost of less water, or vice versa?
Or is it just scary costs from beginning to end?
In the first paragraph alone there are six “coulds” Not one statement based on fact and one major statement “These results relate to no action taken to mitigate global warming” that has been proven to be false over a 17 year period of reality. They just can’t help themselves can they? I’m coining a new Climate Craziness diagnosis”Saurez Psychosis” or an abstract urge to bite off more Climate Hysterics than you can chew 🙂
So we lose 1.8% of GDP when temps are up 3.5C – in what, 200 years?
Seems a lot better, even if true, than crippling our economies now, doesn’t it?
Yet another extrusion from the Ministry of Truth along the lines of “The sky is falling, give us all your money and we will save you.”
Pure propaganda. It is the Weapons of Mass Destruction Dossier all over again. Fabricate the “evidence” to support your own kind of facism. We have see this kind of thing in Europe before….unfortunately with dire consequences
Compared with the damage the EU’s “climate” (and other) policies are already causing, you wouldn’t be able to see the “damaging” effects of a 3.5° temperature rise, even were it at all likely to happen.
As Steve C says, 1.8% GDP loss is, I suspect, rather less than the loss to GDP already of following insane environmentalist polices up until now. As for all the coulds, well we could all be wiped out by an asteroid strike.
How does EU cope with summer now?
Hmmm. I live in Brisbane, it’s at least 3.5 degrees warmer than Europe practically all the time. Have to say I haven’t noticed the disaster.
When are they going to appreciate that there is no such thing as global warming. Even if one were to believe all the hype about CO2 and its warming effect, the fact is that warming is regional, not global.
The data (to the extent that one can rely upon it) clearly confirms that warming is regional with some areas of the globe warming, some not and some with slightly falling temperatures. In particular, the tropical region of the gobe has hardly warmed and the vast majority of the warming appears to have taken place in high latitudes.
It is regional variations that will determine what effect if any there is to a warming world. Of course, model;s appear incapable of predicting regional trends and this is one reason why warmists do not wish to discuss regional warming. Another being that we are all in it together. That is patently untrue. There will be winners and losers in warming world, and the crowd would be split by self interest if the warmist were to concede that climate is a regional not gobal affair.
The fact is that if the world were to warm by 3.5degC, a highly unlikely event if CO2 is the only significant driver, southern europe will not sustain a warming of 3.5 degC. Further the seas in Southern Europe are ‘closed’ so sea level rise will be muted. Further still, much of Southern Europe does not have a low lying coast so again sea level rise will not be that much of a problem where coast line rises cliff like out of the sea.
High latitude Northern Europe would no doubt benefit from a temperature rise. To put in perspective Spain is about 10 degC hotter than England. If the islands and Highlands of Scotland were to see a 4 degC warming, this would greatly benfit their farming and tourism. One of the main holiday destinations and retirement destinations for the British is Spain and the southern Med countries. It would be a godsend for high latitude Northern germany, Denmark the Scandinavian countries and the UK to see their temperatures increase by 4 to 5 deg C. France may lose some wine growing, but this would be offset by wine growing in the UK, Germany and ho knows even Denmark.
One of the main failings with these types of claims is that unless ocean temperatures significantly increase, and it takes a lot more energy and time to increase ocean temperatures, the temperature of the oceans will keep down nearby land temperatures. The other main failing is the failure to appreciate that the warming is predominantly an increase in nighttime lows, and milder winter temperatures. The temperature data (I know that it is not particulalrly reliable) suggests that day time highs are not increasing at the same rate.
The devil is in the detail and until one can model on a regional basis temperature response, no one can identify what problems and what benefits will follow. But don’t trust anything that the EU says, it is run by incompetents with a left wing champagne socialist agenda who are completely divorced from the real world and the beliefs and needs of the citizens that make up the various european countries.
I wonder how many people at this ‘centre’ are greenpiss, wwf, foe members.
Bertram Felden says:
June 26, 2014 at 12:46 am
As Steve C says, 1.8% GDP loss is, I suspect, rather less than the loss to GDP
It is approaching the 1.8% and will reach it over the next 5 yrs. France, if she carries out the Royal proposition will be following the greeks while the other peripheries will decide whether or not they want to follow this band of loonies. Either way a serious problem will arise in europe over the next decade. Germany will be alright because they will just do what is necessary but having said that their major industries appear to be moving to the US in large quantities. VW’s biggest factory is now in the US. That surely would not have happened if the loonies were not in charge.
My neighbours (france) all say the Royal proposition will fail to be passed but I’m not so sure. There are fewer politicians more stupid than the french and those that are not are not far off.
We live in interesting times.
I am intrigued that such a large grouping (0 ~ 97%) of scientists can only come up with one outcome for the advent for the theory of AGW.
It defies all reason that there can only be one outcome for an increase in global temperature.
Therefore I propose 2 new categories are added; “Neutral” and Benign”.
Given that the IPCC and the rest of the warmist mob are sure “the science is in”.and since NB should only increase the number of papers published by around 3% so it’s not such a burden for the readers and taxpayers to absorb.
If that’s all it would take to destroy the EU, GREAT!!!!! Now we know why China is building all those coal fired power stations.
Your biggest recent disaster in Brisbane was all about climate change!
Your pollies were so sure of running out of water because of climate change that they left no headroom in Wivenhoe Dam to take up the flood water (that was never going to come again!)
Oh, yeah, that wasn’t about climate change that was about stupidity!
Let’s face the only people who believe the IPCC, are those that could benefit from the Climate Change Fund. Anyway, it is freezing here only 10C in the house. I don’t heat it either but for my electric blanket and I am now off to watch TV with my dogs. Yer gotta acclimatize and adapt folks, to save money on heating.
Yup, I’m in Perth WA, its now officially winter and we reached a maximum of 20.6 degC. Todays summer forecast for London is 23 degrees. I seriously have to wonder if these people ever take a walk outdoors and I do not believe for one moment that their forecast is correct.
“If Ifs and buts were candy and nuts we’d all have a Merry Christmas” – Sheldon Cooper: a fictional physicist who still manages to makes more sense than this.
The biggest climate related disaster possible in Europe has already happened – Connie Hedegaard in the European Commission wasting European tax payers money on pointless speculation.
I can’t see the word “COLLAPSE” anywhere in the report. Did they not get the memo?
Unfortunately Connie Hedegaard is a zealot who thinks that even if the science is wrong it’s a good idea to wreck the economies of the EU.
She does have an impressive science education, a Masters degree in Literature and History from University of Copenhagen where she doubtless made an extensive study of fairy tales.
Since that time she has had an impressive CV:
Current duties
• European Commissioner for Climate Action as from 2010
Political career
• Minister for The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen 2009.
• 2007 – 2009: Minister of Climate and Energy
• 2008 – 2009: Member of The Danish Governments Coordination Committee
• 2004 – 2007: Minister for Environment, 2005 – 2007 also Minister for Nordic
Cooperation
• 1984 – 1990 and 2005-2009: Member of Parliament, the Conservative Peoples Party.
Professional career
• 1998 – 2004: Anchor at current affairs magazine “Deadline” on DR2, Danish
Broadcasting Corporation
• 1998 – 2004: Columnist at Danish national newspaper “Politiken”.
• 1994 – 1998: Head of News Bulletin Service, Radioavisen, at the Danish Broadcasting
Corporation
• 1990 – 1994: Journalist at Danish national newspaper ”Berlingske Tidende”.
I think that those of us who live in Europe can rest assured we’re in safe hands.
Even in the terms of the report, what an absolute nonsense. The northern half of Europe is the economic powerhouse – Britain, France, Germany, the Baltic States. So if they are hardly touched, its difficult to see how the EU could count climate change as a significant challenge.
Eric Worrall:
At June 26, 2014 at 2:17 am
True. But the main assertion of the report is even more extreme “nonsense”.
The EU is a region, and you mention a region of that region. But the report discusses a global effect. Its main point is
Somebody should tell them that global temperature increases by 3.8°C (and falls by the same amount) during each year, but nobody notices.
Richard
Yeah, yeah, but they’re just taking the PESETA out of the EU.
I continue to be amazed that these alarmist clucks can be so oblivious to the fundamental economic principle of opportunity cost. Opportunity costs arise because, although wealth is not really limited, at least potentially, at any given point in time it is fixed and when we select to invest in one thing we are incurring the cost of all the things we might have invested in which may have been more productive.
Although I have used the example of Warren Buffett’s purchase of Berkshire Hathaway to illustrate this principle several times in the past, I haven’t found a better one so I’ll use it again. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_Hathaway
“…In 1962, Warren Buffett began buying stock in Berkshire Hathaway after noticing a pattern in the price direction of its stock whenever the company closed a mill. Eventually, Buffett acknowledged that the textile business was waning and the company’s financial situation was not going to improve. In 1964, Stanton made an oral tender offer of $111⁄2 per share for the company to buy back Buffett’s shares. Buffett agreed to the deal. A few weeks later, Warren Buffett received the tender offer in writing, but the tender offer was for only $113⁄8. Buffett later admitted that this lower, undercutting offer made him angry.[7] Instead of selling at the slightly lower price, Buffett decided to buy more of the stock to take control of the company and fire Stanton (which he did). However, this put Buffett in a situation where he was now majority owner of a textile business that was failing. …”
“In 2010, Buffett claimed that purchasing Berkshire Hathaway was the biggest investment mistake he had ever made, and claimed that it had denied him compounded investment returns of about $200 billion over the subsequent 45 years.[7] Buffett claimed that had he invested that money directly in insurance businesses instead of buying out Berkshire Hathaway (due to what he perceived as a slight by an individual), those investments would have paid off several hundredfold.”
In other words a capital misallocation of less than $25 million had over 45 years compounded to a $200 BILLION loss of earnings. It is difficult to find on hard numbers on the amount of capital and R&D that has been ratholed on this climate farce over the last couple of decades, but I would suggest a $Trillion would likely be a conservative estimate. If you apply the ratios from the Buffett example and allow for the nearly double timescale to the turn of the next millenium we are talking of foregone wealth for the world on the order of tens of Quadrillions and maybe Quintillions
Now, since even the most ardent promoters of all these detrimental and deleterious “solutions” to CAGW generally admit that none of them will have any effect which will even be measurable, it appears Monckton is entirely correct in saying that the premium for the insurance far exceeds any possible payout and the couple hundred billion euros mentioned wouldn’t even be rounding error.
This is presumably the same Connie Hedegaard who not long ago said that the science didn’t matter, they’d do the same irrespective of the science.
These morons are below contempt.
The EU is obviously a lost cause. The sooner Britain can get out of the wretched thing, the better.
Chris