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.
” to at least €190 billion, a net welfare loss of 1.8% of its current GDP. ”
So Kommissar Heedegard is tasked with creating 190 bn EUR supplementary debt a year to keep the debt currency Ponzi running (and making sure those 190 bn land in the right pockets).
Sounds like chump change to me. Chairsatan Bernanke printet 1 tn USD a year (and Chairsatan(*) Yellen will untaper pretty soon now). 1 tn EUR a year would sound about right given we have a higher population; 190bn is small.
(*) = As Satan, how do you put it, has the properties of both sexes, Chairsatan is the appropriate name for the chair of the Fed no matter the sex or gender.
When a TV channel runs an advertisement for itself, does anybody pay much attention?
Dr Burns says:
June 26, 2014 at 12:46 am
“How does EU cope with summer now?”
I think we abolished it. Looking out the window, lots of clouds.
What IF it is the other way around. -3.5C instead of +3.5C.
Models are a joke and always predict warmer temps. Major Feed Back Issues.
Connie Hedegaard, European Commissioner for Climate Bullshit. Need I say more?
I just had a look just to check. The last time that the worlds temperature was 3 degrees warm and so Europe’s was back in the Jurassic when the Co2 level was 1950ppm 7 times the per-industrial level. After that Co2 goes down to 6 times and the temperature goes up to 4 degrees. Wow the world and Europe must of ended millions of years goes if that’s right ha. Go figure ha. More alarmist bull dust.
If the temperature rises by 3.5 deg C we Brits won’t need to fly to Southern Europe for our holidays. Instead we can stay at home and go the new Costa del Bridlington. Think of all the jet fuel savings.
a reluctant Germany?
24 June: Reuters: Markus Wacket: Germany ups new green energy surcharge on industry to meet EU rules
Germany on Tuesday offered to change a planned reform of its renewable energy policy, trying to end a standoff with the European Commission over green power subsidies and to meet a deadline needed to secure rebates for German industry.
In an amended draft law seen by Reuters, the government proposed that German industrial companies producing their own electricity in new renewable energy or combined heat-power plants would pay a higher surcharge than previously planned.
Germany presented the changes after the Commission raised new sticking points on Monday, undoing what had appeared to be an agreed deal.
But Berlin indicated it would resist EU demands to exempt imported electricity from an energy surcharge…
German industry cannot apply for billions of euros of exemptions from the green energy surcharge if Berlin misses the deadline.
So far energy-intensive industries have been exempt from the surcharge, or have enjoyed large discounts, something they say they need to remain competitive…
“It would be a massive own goal in terms of industrial policy if politicians were to put a surcharge on own power production used by many sectors for decades,” German industry lobby BDI chief Markus Kerber said in a statement.
“That’s the opposite of protecting confidence. German industry needs absolute clarity and long-term security to plan.”…
Subsidized renewable energy, led by wind and solar power, have sparked a political debate in Germany over high prices for consumers, who pay mandatory charges for green energy.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/06/24/us-germany-energy-eu-idUKKBN0EZ1K520140624
want some light reading!
June 2014: World Bank: Climate-smart development : adding up the benefits of actions that help build prosperity, end poverty and combat climate change (Vol. 1 of 2) : Main report (English)
Abstract
This report describes efforts by the ClimateWorks Foundation and the World Bank to quantify the multiple economic, social, and environmental benefits associated with policies and projects to reduce emissions in select sectors and regions. This report describes efforts by the ClimateWorks Foundation and the World Bank to quantify the multiple economic, social, and environmental benefits associated with policies and projects to reduce emissions in select sectors and regions…
This report uses several case studies to demonstrate how to apply the analytical framework. Three simulated case studies analyzed the effects of key sector policies to determine the benefits realized in the United States, China, the European Union, India, Mexico, and Brazil. The sector policies include regulations, taxes, and incentives to stimulate a shift to clean transport, improved industrial energy efficiency, and more energy efficient buildings and appliances…
LINK TO 88 PAGE REPORT
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/06/19703432/
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=sydney+desalination+plant&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ZvqrU7mwM4LEkwWak4GQDA&ved=0CD0QsAQ&biw=1301&bih=583 it was not going to rain in sydney again so they built a desalination plant an it has rained ever since two major floods , now the plant is a white elephant
Even their opening statement is illogical at best and possibly even grammatically flawed. “…… could be at least …. “. Either it could be … or it will be at least ….. What the hell does “it could be at least Euro 190 billion” mean ?
Ok, simple solution. Shut down all fossil fuel use. Just cut it off today.
Then see how much an impact on the economy will be.
“philjourdan says:
June 26, 2014 at 4:03 am”
But but but…74% of the power Germany uses comes from renewables (Aparently, according to AGW supporters here in Aus – But I’ve never seen a wind powered 90Mw Bessemer converter driven by wind. Maybe they get all their steel from South Korea now?).
@Patrick – there does seem to be some disagreement over the percent of power due to renewables in Germany. Of course the left is touting the 74%, but the engineering sites are touting “36%” by 2020. So who to believe?
Regardless, the challenge still stands. If it is 74%, then I am sure the Germans will suffer no ill effects of terminating all fossil fuel generated power.
I would think the alarmist would jump at the challenge. When no one dies in Germany in the next 100 years, they have proven their point.
In more news Chicken little was revealed that the sky is still falling . While the ‘oh my god we are all going to die ‘research organisation have issued a report that if a 100 mile wide meteor hits the earth we are all ‘f**K’
Has for Connie Hedegaard , as a typical EU official they never let their total inability to be honest or right get in the way of making endless statements about what others should do. With a side order of hypocrisy highlighted by their clocking up the type of air miles other people would have to spend several lifetimes trying to get in anormal job. EU commissioners are ‘political appointments’ where ability has little impact, they have ‘no democratic mandate ‘ and are virtual ‘unshakable’ no matter how bad their personal corruption.
I imaging a decrease of 9.5C will do the same.
Well, well, well. Average temperature in India is already at least 10°C higher than in Europe, still, people can not only manage, but rate of economic growth is 46 times higher there. Surely there must be other factors at work.
“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.”
Doesn’t this beg the question, if no further action is taken and the global temperature stays about the same, how much have we saved?
Isn’t the temperature increase in the original question just empty speculation based on nothing?
Here in Aus where I live we can get changes from ~8c to ~48c, winter min summer max, every year. I am still here…Australia is still here and so too is the planet! Real bad news for the Greens.
could amount to at least €190 billion…
That’s pocket change……..
I have a better one….electing morons to office could amount to at least $15 trillion
US GDP fell by -2.9% in the first quarter of 2014.
The main explanation for this was the cold winter.
So here we have situation where cold causes economic decline and temperatures didn’t even go down by that much according to the NCDC.
I’ll take a warm -1.8% rather than a cold/non-cold -2.9% any time.
many thanks to anthony, jo nova, bish, big mac et al. without your tireless efforts on behalf of the scientific method, we in australia – not just Liberals (Conservatives) – would not be celebrating tonite. take a bow:
26 June: SMH: Mark Kenny/Judith Ireland: Liberals celebrate as carbon tax repeal passes lower house
Just before the House adjourned on Thursday, there were jubilant scenes on the floor of the House of Representatives as the Coalition passed the carbon tax repeal bills for the second time.
The final vote went through on the voices after which Environment Minister Greg Hunt was embraced and high-fived by colleagues…
Prime Minister Tony Abbott was not present to see the repeal go through as he was attending a function out of Canberra…
The government’s carbon tax repeal bill will be voted on by the newly configured Senate as early as July 7, but more likely a week later on the 15th – due to Senate procedural rules – after Tony Abbott secured the final crossbench support from Clive Palmer’s Palmer United Party.
It will pass with the support of the Coalition, and most of the cross-bench independents and the PUP bloc which includes the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party’s senator-elect, Ricky Muir…
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/liberals-celebrate-as-carbon-tax-repeal-passes-lower-house-20140626-3awd4.html
the fight is not completely over, but this is fantastic news nonetheless.
tango says:
June 26, 2014 at 3:55 am
“it was not going to rain in sydney again so they built a desalination plant an it has rained ever since two major floods , now the plant is a white elephant”
Ditto for Melbourne – and are paying for the leftist (Labor) government’s stupidity, and will continue to do so for many years to come. I wish people would just read the green’s manifesto – no sensible person would ever vote for them, no matte how bad the alternatives.
Notice the slight of hand being pulled here. They have taken the most extreme scenario, the one with by far the most absurd base assumptions, and now they are assuming it will come true.
Why not assume that the other extreme will be the one that happens, the one that results in about 0.2C of warming?
“If…, …could…, …could…, …could…, …could…, …could…, …could…, …expected…” and that’s just the first paragraph.
How much did this piece of garbage cost the EU taxpayer.
The EU doesn’t need climate change to cripple ithe EU, it is doing a good enough job on its own!
Last summer it was reported that Marbella had enough water, even if there was no rain at all to last until summer 2015 without any restrictions. The desalination plant that was built down the road from us, to my lknowledge, has never been used.
The whole scenario is alarmist, fictitious, b******t!
If no further action is taken………..
If my auntie had testicles she’d be my uncle?
The only serious flooding we will suffer in europe is from the overflowing of the green gravy trains.