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.
Bill Illis says:
June 26, 2014 at 5:07 am
Overhere in the Netherlands they claim that the shrinking of our economy was due to the mild winter.
Some other weather related extremes will halve their frequency.
Propaganda. Nothing more, nothing less.
PS. Look how Connie Whatsername is ‘European Commissioner for Climate Action’. Not change, ‘Action’. Every step is designed to drive the agenda.
In light of this report, I strongly urge everyone in Europe to immediately begin doing at least a half hour of calisthenics and stretching, 4 times a week. Like the draconian plans for carbon mitigation, this will have absolutely no measurable impact on European climate. Unlike the draconian plans for carbon mitigation, it will not cripple the economy, but make everyone in Europe feel better about themselves and about life in general.
From the misleading numbers settlement of science: Chicken Little quantifies the effects of the falling sky.
A shame the 3.5°C increase in temperature isn’t going to happen…
This sounds like the Copenhagen Diagnosis (remember that one?) on steroids.
It took zero degree change to get to the current status of crippled EU.
Too many “could”s and no facts. That’s the EU for you.
Let’s assume for a moment that pigs suddenly obtain the ability to fly. Now lets imagine the economic impact flying pigs will have on Europe. Such pigs will be difficult to contain. They could go anywhere and breed with wild abandon. Their impact on open agriculture would be profoundly negative. They would disrupt traffic on land and in the air. Dare we even consider the health and nuisance impacts of a plethora of unpredictable pig droppings? One shudders to even think about it.
It is not difficult to imagine nightmare scenarios developing from the assumption of flying pigs, but no one really cares about such scenarios because everyone knows that pigs cannot fly.
Now assume that Earth’s atmosphere always maintains a constant relative humidity. No matter what the climate or the temperature, the average relative humidity always, magically remains the same. Much like flying pigs, there is no evidence that this assumption is true, and ample evidence that it is false. Yet, the concept of constant relative humidity is a bit more difficult to understand than ‘…whether pigs have wings’! The average Joe, and even the average Joe-scientist, may be tempted to contemplate the possibility of constant relative humidity, simply because their ignorance of such things makes it seem more feasible.
Once the assumption of constant relative humidity is accepted, then it is easy to imagine the calamities that await society from a doubling of atmospheric CO2. The increase of 1 degree from the CO2 would be largely beneficial, but we can triple the temperature increase if we assume our magically constant relative humidity! Now we can come up with all kinds of terrible things for which there is no basis in reality. Since politicians, bureaucrats and environmentalists want scary stories, we can even make a good living writing such stories, giving ourselves impressive acronyms like PESETA.
To date, however, there is no more evidence for constant relative humidity than there is for flying pigs! The existence of either is equally unfounded. It is only the difference in our level of ignorance between flying pigs (virtually none) and constant relative humidity (almost universal) that allows us to be taken seriously when we write our doomsday fantasies about global warming.
You can all be thankful that you do not have to put up with the droppings of soaring swine, yet you will be unable to escape the crap that comes from the other fantasy.
If this report were to be issued in the private industry it would not get past the most basic review . The fundamental error is that it does not speak to all the critical climate risks that Europe may face . It is biased toward global warming only. There is an equal risk that global warming as described in the report will not happen in the short term (next 2-3 decades) nor in the long term ( 2070- 2100 and beyond ). There is observable evidence that instead of warming as predicted , the climate is now in a pause for 17 year . Peer reviewed papers by Wallace S. Brooker of Columbia University dated 1998 and called The End of the Present Inter glacial: How and When , stated that “ periods of extreme warmth appear to be roughly one half of a precession cycle (ie.aprox. 11,000 years . He also states that the current or latest warmth period is already 11,500 years . We could be living on borrowed time. This could dwarf the potential impact or risk from any warmth increase due to future co2 level increases. Instead of warning the people about global warming induced climate change, they should also be looking with equal detail on how Europe could survive a major cold cycle during the early phase of a glaciation period . Historical records show that the glaciation period once started drops temperatures quite quickly. The 2013/2014 winter in North America was just a forerunner of what may lie ahead . We may have 20-30 years of cold weather in the immediate future and by 2060-2100, we could equally have an entirely different ball game in the world to worry about and it may not be global warming . It reminds of the modified story of the boy crying wolf all the time and everyone focused on him only. No one noticed the bear that was lurking much closer in the bushes until it was too late .
During the Eemian interglacial, 125,000 years ago, Europe had quite the tropical climate. We can tell that it must have been disastrous for the people at the time since they must have all perished, having left no records at all. However, the Hippopotami thrived quite well in the European rivers.
(/extreme sarc)
@Jim Clarke June 26, 2014 at 6:12 am
Good idea. However, we need a High Commissioner for Calisthenics and Stretching to do that, don’t we? Along with a gazillion bureaucrats to do planning &. reporting, then distribute subsidies to kins.
It was also noted that a large meteor strike would do then any good either. Good grief. Given that there will not be any 3.5 degree C increase in the forseeable future, but that it is likely that there will be a decrease tell me why I should care.
Cow farts and human exhaling will kill the planet. These people should be locked in a padded room.
This climate report and others like this one speak to the heart of false climate science alarmism that is rampant to day .These alarmist climate science reports are meant to exaggerate and scare people. They do not highlight in the opening paragraph that some of these projections are worst case projections that may never happen. These qualifications never make the headlines or press releases .The rational world does not plan for the future based on worst case scenarios. We might as well all quit living if this was the case. We simply cannot afford to plan for worst case situations . The problem is that politicians take these worst case situations and make public policies and actions as if they were true.
I suggest taking their publicly available model (it is, isn’t it? [sarc off]) and loading it with the same economic input data drawn from 1934 as the base year and running it to see what the situation should be given the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming that has happened in the intervening 80 years and then comparing the results.
So they can’t open a window or turn up the air conditioning or take a dip if the temp goes up 3.5degrees? I’d far rather have to deal with that slight inconvenience than have to endure worsening negative temperatures in the winter…
I think the EU should hold a referendum to favor or oppose said 3.5C increase.
That of course assumes there is something like the EU in 2100, that is hasn’t imploded under the load of population changes, unbearable debt, financial transfers from successful economies to unsuccessful ones and the path of the global economy. All of these are much more likely scenarios than a 3.5 degree warming.
Wow, that is dire. Good thing the warming has stopped and we are going back to the ice age ……
@Kaboom
Stating the obvious again
Lol
in germany NOW we are paying round about 40 billion EUR / year because of the energiewende and to save the climate!
*EEG (renewable energy act): >20 billion EUR/ year
* other financial direct/indirect help and/or support for green research, buisiness…: 10 – 20 billion EUR / year
PS: sorry for bad english 😀
Connie Hedegaard and the other EU Commissioners know that there is nothing factual about their report, but they offer it to provide cover for EU edicts which are sure to follow, edicts which will provide enormous additional wealth and power/control to a handful of individuals, while placing enormous burdens on everyone else. The top tier of elites do not care if they cause the destruction of Western economies, because faint challenge can be raised against them if everyone else is locked into survival mode. They will succeed for a time and then the guillotines will once again be widely employed.