Economists Prove Climate Change is Always Worse Somewhere Else

Economic Intelligence Unit Projected Climate Losses. Source EIU Report 2019

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to the EIU, climate change will cause tremendous economic harm, but the USA and Europe will be least affected.

The Asian economy will be 2.6% smaller by 2050 due to lack of climate resilience

Wednesday 20 November 2019

  • The Asia-Pacific economy will be 2.6 per cent smaller in 2050 according a new framework developed by The Economist Intelligence Unit (The EIU), with developing countries in the region set to be the most affected.
  • The EIU expects economic losses in every year leading up to 2050, with the risk that further losses could be seen if policy effectiveness is not improved. 
  • According to The EIU’s framework, Africa is the least resilient region to the impact of climate change (4.7 per cent smaller), followed by Latin America (3.8 per cent), the Middle East (3.7 per cent), Eastern Europe (3 per cent) and the Asia-Pacific.
  • North America (1.1 per cent smaller) and Western Europe (1.7 per cent) display the most resilience and are likely to see the least impact economically because both regions are richer and more prepared to tackle climate change from an institutional standpoint. 
  • The EIU’s research shows that being rich is an advantage to tackle climate change, but institutional quality matters, too.

The EIU’s research shows that being rich is an advantage, but institutional quality matters, too. Institutional quality is a major determinant of long-run economic growth, but The EIU’s results also point to the importance of institutional quality for minimising the impact of climate change. Poor institutions, therefore, can simultaneously harm economic growth and exacerbate the negative impacts of climate change.

Read more:

The report is available here, if you are prepared to provide some intrusive personal information.

I haven’t read the report (I didn’t want to provide that intrusive personal information), but I guess we now understand why “climate losses” are projected to be so severe in Africa, compared to the USA and Europe; most Africans don’t enjoy the benefits of a wealthy fossil fuel powered economy.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 20, 2019 2:16 pm

Isn’t the US economy growing at around 2% per annum? So by 2050 we will have been set back by 6 months in growth? Huh.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  brians356
November 20, 2019 3:33 pm

It appears that EIU Report is a perfect example of “lying with statistics”.

The arithmetic average of their chart is 2.94%

However, the sizes of the first three economic regions (North Amer., W. Eur., and Asia-Pac.) dwarf the sizes of the last three. A weighted average would therefore be significantly less than 3%.

To pump up their already questionable assumptions, they used a “World Average – Real GDP Loss”, rather than the figure for the calculated “World – Real GDP Loss” which would clearly be much less!

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  brians356
November 20, 2019 6:11 pm

It’s half the story, half truths told to deceive.
Imagine what happens without affordable fossil fuels.

Because if we let them impose energy poverty via their anti-fossil fuel agenda, our economies will be 30% – 50% poorer by 2050, except the Billionaire elites living large. The billionaires will still have their private jets, chalets in Davos and Aspen, and mega-yachts, because they will be the only ones plus governments able to afford fossil fuels. Everyone else will be serfs, with a very few technocrats to service the elites as they see themselves.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  brians356
November 21, 2019 10:21 am

On the assumption that there isn’t a sudden catastrophic loss in 2049 leading to the 4% reduction, we can assume that this is cumulative, like reverse compound interest. So, the formula is A=P(1+i)^n, where A is the future value, P is the current value, i is the periodic interest rate, and n is the number of compounding periods. We want to find i, the amount by which the world economy shrinks per year to yield a 4% total drop. If the world economy did nothing but shrink, that would be:

96 = 100(1+i)^31
0.96 = (1+i)31
0.998684028 = 1 + i [after taking the 31st root]
i = -0.001315972

or -0.1316% per annum. Anyone else skeptical that this is anything other than noise when it comes to the performance of the world economy? According to the World Bank, the annual growth for the world economy is about 3% from 1961 to present.

November 20, 2019 2:16 pm

So, in thirty years the GDP will be 3% less. That corresponds to an inflation rate of 0.1%. There are so many factors to consider that such precision isn’t possible. The predictions are a joke.

Reply to  commieBob
November 20, 2019 2:31 pm

But the Precautionary Principle demands we do something even if doing nothing is the best of the available choices.

Reply to  chemman
November 20, 2019 4:20 pm

The precautionary principle reminds me of The Three Sillies

Reply to  chemman
November 21, 2019 10:33 am


James Snook
Reply to  commieBob
November 20, 2019 2:35 pm

Absolutely. The projections represent a non event.

Tom Abbott
November 20, 2019 2:30 pm

From the article: “The EIU’s results also point to the importance of institutional quality for minimising the impact of climate change. Poor institutions, therefore, can simultaneously harm economic growth and exacerbate the negative impacts of climate change.”

They must be talking about Trump when they say “poor institutions”. A “good institution” would be one that took human-caused climate change seriously, is what I interpret them to be saying.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 20, 2019 5:23 pm

they just agreed with Trump…3rd world crapholes will always be the most anything

…and it was the choice they made a long time ago

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 21, 2019 9:51 am

Tom Abbott

I see you’re from Bizzaro World, where everything is the inverse of our reality.

Tom Abbott
November 20, 2019 2:36 pm

From the article: “According to the EIU, climate change will cause tremendous economic harm”

In what way? Don’t we have to have evidence that human-caused climate change is real before we start making predictions about what it might cause? These guys are assuming too much.

What will cause tremendous economic harm is if delusional alarmists are ever able to put their crazy windmill/solar nightmare in place in the Western democracies (the rest of the world isn’t stupid enough to do this).

son of mulder
November 20, 2019 2:38 pm

They did a far more impressive but equally rubbish Project Fear for our UK Brexit. There is a class of authoritarians who are just willing to make stuff up and sell it as if it’s real and credible. There are too many levers available to governments and companies that make any such long range predictions farcical.

Reply to  son of mulder
November 20, 2019 5:57 pm

Project fear went as far as saying that lack of radioactive isotopes needed for medical diagnostics is the unavoidable effect of a “hard brexit”, for many isotopes with “lifetimes measured in hours” (so clearly we aren’t dealing with Cs-137 here).

Of course these isotopes can’t be transported like normal goods because they are soooo valuable for terrorists. Because they are soooo dangerous when terrorists spread these randomly. They are only safe when… used in an hospital. Inject: OK. Spread in a street: bad.

And radiation is a unique terrorism threat because… well after a lot of pushing people around on Tweeter on the topic all I got was in the form of “It’s obviously dangerous…” and “radiation is a danger duh do you dismiss Nagasaki”.

Also their unique radioactive property make them impossible to store. They can’t be kept on the shelves. To believe brexit will not cause a shortage, you have to assume you can change the laws of physics. Also they are uniquely useful for terrorists because they can cause billions in damages by spreading them in a city causing long term contamination, because only ridiculously costly decontamination or simply destruction of a building can get rid of that radioactivity, which persists for years, because terrorism.

Summary: Isotopes dangerous and radiation bad and can’t allow easy Nagasaki and terrorism bends physics unlike UK politics.

I don’t know what the medical qualification for what these people exhibit (many of which are in medical organisations), but if the psychiatrists don’t study it, I consider them also touched.

I now know who watches the TV films where the Moon explodes and falls on the Earth: the anti brexit “serious journalism” believing crowd.

Mike McHenry
November 20, 2019 2:43 pm

Was this based on a particular IPCC RCP model?

Curious George
Reply to  Mike McHenry
November 20, 2019 2:52 pm

More specifically: Is it a projection from historical data, or from models?

November 20, 2019 2:45 pm

So both the EU and the USA will be least affected. But as the EU is very Green inclined, and the USA is least Green, how can that be. ?

Anyway its all far too late, as we are told that if we do not stop adding CO2 to the Worlds atmosphere, we are all doomed. But what about India and China, plus all of the other 3 rd World undeveloped countries.

Its too late, so let us enjoy ourselves in our remaining years.


Reply to  Michael
November 20, 2019 4:15 pm

…and the USA does better than the EU

November 20, 2019 2:50 pm

My first rule in a long successful life is to take a pinch of salt when reading predictions from economists .
If they were really so smart why are they wasting their lives trying to tell people what they think will happen in the future .
The people that I listen to are the ones that have demonstrated how they have built up businesses from very humble beginnings and put their ideas into reality .
This week Rod Oram a business correspondent with the New Zealand Herald (who I had thought was sensible ) wrote a column on our governments new Zero Carbon Bill that has just become law.
He should know that this bill if carried through with will decimate New Zealand .
No other country in the world is going to tax their farmers for their sheep and cattle’s methane emissions.
No other country in the world relies on exporting agricultural produce to generate overseas funds to buy all the products that can be mass produced overseas .
The very worst thing was that he accepted blindly that biogenic methane is a problem .
Just drive out of the city and you might see the sun shining and the grass growing .
What does all living plants absorb from the air? CO2
And then the sheep and cattle eat the grass and crops .
And during the digestion process a small amount of methane is belched back into the air .
Methane rises high into the atmosphere and after a short time it is broken down into CO2 and H2O.
And the cycle continues and not one more atom of carbon is emitted into the atmosphere over any time span.
Zilch Nada NOT ONE ATOM.
And we have economists praising the Zero Carbon Bill.
Proud to be a farmer feeding the world.

Reply to  Gwan
November 20, 2019 3:10 pm

From what I understand the same amount of methane would be emitted if the grass just decomposed.
Journalists in NZ are as bad as most in the USA now.

John Robertson
Reply to  mikebartnz
November 20, 2019 10:01 pm

Maybe you could persuade them to take up shovels and attack the swamps,as wetlands produce much methane.
Try to pick the most bottomless sinkhole you know of.
Convince them to start in the middle.
GWAN’s example is perfect.
The Cult of Calamitous Climate produces endless genuine X spurts.
Who have a truly enviable record.
100% wrong.
That is amazing.

November 20, 2019 3:00 pm

Trust but verify, especially with climate “agreements” and impact studies.

November 20, 2019 3:04 pm

I guess Australia was in the Asia-Pacific group. Frustrating really, we trade with them but our ideology is totally at odds with theirs. I guess our small population doesn’t rate a mention in it’s own right.

I wanted to make a comment on a renewable energy site last night suggesting that they tell the ‘whole story’. They wanted to know the ins and outs of a cat’s behind so I backed off. It felt like the whole ‘Big Brother’ thing.

November 20, 2019 3:15 pm

Good thing economists are never right or even close.

November 20, 2019 3:24 pm

If GDP loss is the issue then the relevant data is that global GDP loss due to climate if no climate action taken 40%.

Postscript: the real harm of climate change may turn out to be not the reduction of GDP but the corruption of intellectual endeavour into the all encompassing topic of climate change. The sun has set on the age of reason and it is rising on the age of moron.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
November 20, 2019 4:22 pm

Correction: this comment got garbled in the process somehow. What i meant to say was global gdp loss due to climate if no climate action take is less than 4% and global gdp loss due to climate action if climate action taken is more than 40%.

November 20, 2019 3:29 pm

“Economists Prove Climate Change POLICY is Always Worse Somewhere Else”

Those Malthusian psychopaths are contemplating the forecasted results of their own fake climate crisis but actual catastrophic policy applied to fullfil their agenda :
– global empoverishment and destruction of the Third World nations.

Gordon Dressler
November 20, 2019 4:04 pm

Re: the table in the above article:
Anyone or any organization that asserts it is possible to predict 30 years into the future the changes in the GDP of various regions of the world, let alone the whole world, to an accuracy of +/- 0.1%, is . . . well, simply not at all to be taken seriously.

And it matters not what economic parameter affecting GDP is being considered.

Berndt Koch
November 20, 2019 4:05 pm

So the Dems have a great way to prevent losing 1.1% of GDP… spend 30% of GDP per year on GND until 2050

But hang on.. the loss of GDP in 2050 will be 100% because we’ll all be dead in 12 years or 18 months or by next Thursday

November 20, 2019 4:12 pm

The idiotic responses to insignificant “climate change” are and will continue to cause FAR greater economic disruption than any minor change in the climate.

November 20, 2019 4:19 pm

Great!!…bring it on
Every other country gets whacked..we take the least hit..we’re worth more…..WINNING!

Bruce Cobb
November 20, 2019 4:31 pm

By an amazing coincidence, GDP losses due to attacks by space aliens lines up exactly the same way.
I mean, what are the odds?

November 20, 2019 4:33 pm

What we do know is Climate-Change™ brutally attacks the brains of mentally-weak left-leaning people. Climate-Change™ also drove rapid growth in excess feral circus-clowns, which seem to be strongly attracted to infesting busted-ass university psychology departments, and of course, greens parties.

Adrian E.
November 20, 2019 4:51 pm

So, with all compounding over the remaining 30 years, the effect of climate change for that whole timespan is expected to be around a number in the ballpark of economic growth for one year.

In other words, the effects of climate change are expected to be very small. If the economic effects of a global phenomenon over such a relatively long time are expected to be so small, I would expect that we can hardly expect that we can say with high confidence whether the effect will be net positive or net negative (overall positive effects of warming, as long as it is not too much, are certainly plausible for many regions).

But even if we assume that there will, indeed, be such a small negative effect, it will almost certainly be dwarfed by the economic effect of different measures for „combatting climate change“ – even if politicians opt for more moderate compromises.

Michael Jankowski
November 20, 2019 5:07 pm

I heard GDP is bad, anyhow.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
November 21, 2019 6:59 am

It does appear to be immune to most antibiotics.

John Endicott
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
November 21, 2019 9:02 am

And it’s gross (the hint’s in the name) 😉

paul rossiter
November 20, 2019 5:20 pm

Simple: rubbish in (human caused CAGW), rubbish out (GDP loss).

November 20, 2019 6:17 pm

In the real world there are choices. What is the loss of GDP of eliminating a significant part of fossil fuels?
30%, 50%, 90%, 99%? Of course it depends on how much you eliminate and how high do you drive up the price of energy.
The study shows bad events hurt people more the poorer they are. (Kind of obvious)

So the global warming fanatics think everyone should be made much poorer.

November 20, 2019 6:23 pm

At the approx. 5 1/2% growth rate expected for the next several years, the Asia Pacific region’s GDP would be 528% of its current state. Even with their expected 2.6% reduction, this would have GDP at 512% of the current value.
The people will be far better off. If the global-warmest agenda is adopted, the people will be driven to misery and starvation.
But, leftists will feel good about themselves (which is the point of all of their policies).

Cliff Hilton
November 20, 2019 7:04 pm

The EIU Report folks are not going to get another grant. I can clearly see that. It sure wasn’t very scary. Nope, not very.

November 20, 2019 8:20 pm

Rubbish! EVERY COUNTRIES GDP will be through the roof ! In our happy, good-time, clean green future! We will create jobs to tear down and rebuild every building to be as cosy as an igloo with a 12” blanket of snow. Every smokestack power plant will be turned into 10,000 acres of solar panels, with thousands of employees paid to sweep the dust off the surface. And since laborers will be paid the EXACT same amount as a neurosurgeons … everyone will be RICH$$€€££¥¥ !!! Yeayy!!! In fact money will be irrelevant in our Star Trek future … so who cares about GDP’s? Everyone will be provided anything they want, and everyone will work for free! What a wonderful green utopia we will all be living!! Of course Al Gore will STILL have the nicest mansion in all of Santa Barbara … where the oceans will NEVER rise … because Al’s living there.

Oh boy! I can’t wait … *sheesh*

November 20, 2019 8:41 pm

“The Asia-Pacific economy will be 2.6 per cent smaller in 2050”

Send the Marshall Plan aid to me and I’ll distribute it appropriately for Oz or we’ll have to declare war on America-

November 20, 2019 9:07 pm

“but I guess we now understand why “climate losses” are projected to be so severe in Africa, compared to the USA and Europe; most Africans don’t enjoy the benefits of a wealthy fossil fuel powered economy.”

What they are trying to tell us, is that the countries that live closest to outside influences subject to weather are going to suffer the most… While the wealthiest countries will set their thermostats and forget about outside weather.

In other words, they’re desk jockeys inventing falsehoods for countries where:
1) They believe the disadvantaged will love the attention and the offers of help.
2) That no-one will check their predictions, if the global warming actually occurs.

I notice that they do not describe the deprivation wealthiest countries are expected to incur when they divest themselves of everything fossil fuel derived and powered.

Rod Evans
November 20, 2019 11:00 pm

My experience in life tells me futurology is an imprecise activity.
You have to be pretty ignorant of nature, to think you are in a position to add decimal points to your forward gaze.
Cast your minds back thirty years. We were still sending rolls of film off to be developed. Police business directors and millionaires were the only people with mobile communication. Road atlases were still relevant for helping you know where you were.
I am certain to four decimal places, my predictions of the future are correct. I just struggle to define which prediction to go for…
The traditional view of economists is perhaps worth repeating.
If you put all the economists in the world end to end, they would never reach a conclusion.

November 21, 2019 12:32 am

How accurate are GDP forecasts going out to 2050?

Not even remotely close.

This is a total waste of time. If climate change is real, it will probably have some net negative effect on GDP by 2050. That’s all we can say, the sum total of our knowledge. The idea we can forecast losses tone decimal point is absurd , perhaps fraudulent.

All sensible people know this yet the nonsense continues.

Alexander Vissers
November 21, 2019 12:48 am

The study is ridiculous in its concept that we know much of what the world and climate will look like in 2050. The percentages presented are so futile that they are meaningless. Why bother people with guesses,they may make an equally good guess for themselves.

James In WNC
November 21, 2019 8:37 am

So what’s easier to model? The global economy or the global climate?

Malcolm Chapman
November 21, 2019 8:54 am

Pity the poor Economist – the newspaper that is; it used to be an essential read – now…

Johann Wundersamer
November 27, 2019 9:23 pm

As already known by other doomsday conspirators “Economic Intelligence Unit” posts distilled water rising up against the evening sun.

The last opportunity for doomsday conspirators to insinuate something like “pollution” while flue gas cleaning for industrial plants is the norm today.

comment image

Anyway “Economic Intelligence Unit” could wise up at VOEST-Alpine:

%d bloggers like this: