The Economic Costs Of Climate Change–Swiss Re


JUNE 10, 2021

By Paul Homewood

As promised, my analysis of Swiss Re’s claims about the cost of climate change:


  • New Climate Economics Index stress-tests how climate change will impact 48 countries, representing 90% of world economy, and ranks their overall climate resilience
  • Expected global GDP impact by 2050 under different scenarios compared to a world without climate change:
    -18% if no mitigating actions are taken (3.2°C increase);
    -14% if some mitigating actions are taken (2.6°C increase);
    -11% if further mitigating actions are taken (2°C increase);
    -4% if Paris Agreement targets are met (below 2°C increase)
  • Economies in Asia would be hardest hit, with China at risk of losing nearly 24% of its GDP in a severe scenario, while the world’s biggest economy, the US, stands to lose close to 10%, and Europe almost 11%

Climate change poses the biggest long-term threat to the global economy. If no mitigating action is taken, global temperatures could rise by more than 3°C and the world economy could shrink by 18% in the next 30 years. But the impact can be lessened if decisive action is taken to meet the targets set in the Paris Agreement, Swiss Re Institute’s new Climate Economics Index shows. This will require more than what is pledged today; public and private sectors will play a crucial role in accelerating the transition to net zero.

Swiss Re Institute has conducted a stress test to examine how 48 economies would be impacted by the ongoing effects of climate change under four different temperature increase scenarios. As global warming makes the impact of weather-related natural disasters more severe, it can lead to substantial income and productivity losses over time. For example, rising sea levels result in loss of land that could have otherwise been used productively and heat stress can lead to crop failures. Emerging economies in equatorial regions would be most affected by rising temperatures.

The report offers various scenarios of warming, but even the 1.5C target would, according to Swiss Re, cost 4.2% of GDP:


The impact on poorer countries tends to be higher in percentage terms, but they suggest the cost to the UK would be 2.4%, something £50 billion a year. At 2.6C, this rises to 6.5%. Unsurprisingly the authors conclude that” no action on climate change is not an option” – which was no doubt the purpose of the report in the first place!

But where do their figures come from? For a start, the idea that there could be three degrees of warming by 2050 is utterly absurd.

Secondly it has been generally accepted that a small amount of warming could actually be beneficial.

The costings are inevitably derived from computer modelling (!), which attempts to quantify what the world’s economy would have looked like in a world without climate change. This is frankly silly, as a world without fossil fuels and economic growth generated by them would have been infinitely poorer than now. In any event, these sort of studies that try to guess what the world would be like without warming are worthless, and just a game for fools and charlatans.

It might have helped if they had used real world data to inform their guesses, but they don’t even appear to have done that. They focus on six areas:



It is unquestionable that the warming since the 19thC has been hugely beneficial for agriculture, thanks to longer growing seasons and the ability to cultivate areas previously too cold.

As for lazy assumptions that warmer weather will cut crop yields, it ignores the ability to adapt cultivation practices, such as time of planting, choice of crops and the availability of new, climate resilient strains of seeds.

There is also the implied risk of more extreme weather, such as droughts, heavy rain and storms. But there is no evidence whatsoever that any of this has happened so far.

Human Health

The study seems to ignore the fact that cold kills many more humans than heat. Meanwhile experts in the field have long ago dismissed the notion that malaria and dengue are related to climate change.

The Lancet have been peddling these falsehoods for a long while.

Labour Productivity

This is another favourite of The Lancet. But it ignores the fact that working practices have been changing out of all recognition. Increasingly, workers do not have to toil with their bare hands, as their forefathers did. Technology and mechanisation mean they no longer have to work such long hours, and can therefore take time out to rest at the hottest time of day. (Has Swiss Re never heard of siestas?)

Sea Levels

This is the only area where economic loss might be likely. But the tiny amounts of sea level rise in the last century mean that any further rise by 2050 will be imperceptible.


Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel!

For years, “experts” have warned that tourists would stop visiting Spain and other countries, because it would be too hot.

But just suppose it really got too hot there in summer. What would people do? Simply visit at cooler times of the year.

Energy Demand

A warmer climate will unquestionably lead to reduced energy demand in the UK and others with a similar climate. But this is not just true of only the temperate latitudes. Countries like India and China, for instance, also need a lot of energy for heating.

There may be increased demand for air conditioning, but the reality is that most people in poorer countries already need but have no access to it.


Coming back to the UK, it is simply absurd to claim that we would be £50 billion better off with the climate of the Little Ice Age, Our agriculture would be severely hit, mortality higher, and energy demand greater.

If the Swiss Re study cannot even get that bit right, why should we trust any of it?

4.9 28 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joseph Zorzin
June 10, 2021 10:22 am

“As for lazy assumptions that warmer weather will cut crop yields, it ignores the ability to adapt cultivation practices, such as time of planting, choice of crops and the availability of new, climate resilient strains of seeds.”

and some can move to areas currently a bit too cold- much of North America and Euroasia

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 10, 2021 1:28 pm

As long as the change is consistent and predictable. Didn’t work out too well for Canadian corn a few years ago. It’d also be highly dependant on what happened to the rain patterns. In the middle of the USA, near the KS/MO border, the rain shifts over time sufficiently to make corn good or iffy over a few hundred miles, depending on the year. If the average temperature went up significantly and the rain went away, that’d make for a bad year.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 10, 2021 2:30 pm

Beyond that, more areas will be able to plant two crops in a year as the growing seasons lengthen.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 11, 2021 9:19 am

As for handling warmer weather – there ARE some crops that perform a bit worse if it’s too hot. But I have yet to find any where you can’t solve that fairly easily with some shade cloth. That’s quite a bit cheaper and easier than greenhouses or even high tunnels for growing when it’s colder.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  TonyG
June 11, 2021 9:31 am

So we have a choice- 1) keep using, efficiently of course, fossil fuels- have an expanding economy- and make whatever adjustments are necessary IF climate warms- or 2) spend trillions – severely damage our economy- pave over millions of acres of the green Earth with “green energy”- lose strategic power to China- and still, maybe, have a nicely warmer planet or not

Clearly, some locations may not improve with a slightly warmer temperature, but many will. So be it. C’est la vie.

Gregory Woods
June 10, 2021 10:27 am

If the Swiss Re study cannot even get that bit right, why should we trust any of it?

Is this a rhetorical question?

Reply to  Gregory Woods
June 10, 2021 11:33 am

Can I add ? … , If the Germans can’t make wind power work well, why should anyone bet our future on it ?

In the January 2021 blizzards the German windmills were icing over, and made useless. The German electricity grid was in danger of collapse. The Germans sent helicopters with reservoirs of de-icing fluids slung underneath to spray on the airfoils. Helicopters using aviation fuel (mainly kerosene) … aren’t those evil fossil fuels? … to keep the “Energy Chosen Ones” operating. And, de-icing fluids washing down onto the farmlands, and “previously forest” floors.

No-one is talking about the Texas January Cold Event disaster anymore either.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  sendergreen
June 10, 2021 11:59 am

Texas February record cold, but I get the point.

Rud Istvan
June 10, 2021 10:29 am

Remember that Swiss Re is an insurance company mainly selling reinsurance to other insurance companies. This study is just an excuse for them to hike their rates. No bias there—NOT.
World didn’t slow global warming. It’s bad. Our rates are going up x% effective immediately because we have no choice.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 10, 2021 11:14 am

Nothing to do with CC, Lightning hit my house and anything with a chip was fried. I paid the deductible, lost the 10% “no claims” discount, and the policy went up in cost 30% each year for the next 2 years. They got the payout back in 2 years, then cancelled my policy, which caused problems with the “have you ever been refused” question from the next insurer. I’m thinking their existing methodology renders actual CC issues fairly minor….not saying they won’t try for sympathy points on their fees….

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 10, 2021 11:54 am

Insurance is repriced yearly so they get theirs no matter what.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  jleefeldman
June 10, 2021 11:37 pm

Every time someone puts in a claim, if it’s paid out their premiums go up come renewal time! They always send in the loss adjusters prior to paying out, their function, believe it or not, is to adjust the loss – downwards in all probability, rarely upwards! When gainfully employed in structural engineering, many of us considered insurance companies as leaches on society, & the loss adjusters the leaches on the backs of the leaches! Insurance companies know full well that 95% of what we worry about never happens to us, their regular “coping” surveys tell them that, so in every bank/building society (building & loan in the US I think), there are adverts trying to scare us into taking out insurance against what they know is unlikely to happen to us, because they get their cut from the deal & insurance companies wouldn’t offer the protection if the risk was in the slightest bit high!!! CC is merely another excuse to make money from FUD, Fear Uncertainty & Doubt!!! Throughout man’s history, somebody somewhere, is always trying to sow FUD as it gives them power over others, (the peasants that is), there always has to be a bogyman somewhere!!!

Reply to  Alan the Brit
June 12, 2021 8:09 am

That’s why a lot of large companies that can afford to do so are self insured.

Reply to  jleefeldman
June 12, 2021 8:08 am

Exactly. And God help you if you make a claim. Never do so for a non catastrophic loss! It’s like medical insurance for hospitalization that covers no routine visits and they double it if you ever have to use it.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 10, 2021 1:02 pm

“we have no choice”

the prophets said so!

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 10, 2021 1:07 pm

You misspelled ‘profits.’

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  H.R.
June 10, 2021 9:14 pm

Lot of that going around

Christina Widmann
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
June 11, 2021 1:58 am

If there’s profits going around, send some my way.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 11, 2021 1:07 am

“Remember that Swiss Re is…”

Here is a larger sample: 457 investors, who hold almost a third of world’s assets under management put out a joint statement. So no, they’re not tree-hugging communists.

2021 Global Investor Statement to Governments on the Climate Crisis

Calling for governments to:
““significantly strengthen” their plans to cut carbon emissions in the next decade and to bring in detailed targets for net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner.

Reply to  Loydo
June 11, 2021 6:17 am

Who cares they are a mob of investors risking other peoples money … bottom line they don’t give a rats and have hedged into a position and are trying to push the boat that way.

You trust those sorts at your own peril because they openly manipulate the market.

That is the problem you need to be aware there are a lot of snouts in the bucket now.

Last edited 1 year ago by LdB
Bill Toland
Reply to  Loydo
June 11, 2021 9:45 am

Loydo, the fact that “climate crisis” is part of the heading immediately invalidates your link.

Last edited 1 year ago by Bill Toland
Ron Long
June 10, 2021 10:30 am

Good review of the crazy position. I used to think the problem was CAGW stupidity, now I think they simply want your money in their hands, and will do anything (the end justifies the means) to get it. All of these idiots/crooks that want it colder should go to the Yukon or Siberia and see how it works. Good riddance.

Reply to  Ron Long
June 10, 2021 10:53 am

Most of us laboured under the same misapprehension for years.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Ron Long
June 10, 2021 12:38 pm

This is why arguing the science is well past its best-before date for sceptics. I think the best strategy to win hearts and minds away from the totalitites is to argue that with ~3500 or so new coal-fired plants in construction and on the drawing board outside of “the West”, removes all doubts that we are going to double CO2 in the atmosphere. The worst case scenario “8.5” is not implausible anymore. New coal is being developed at rates not thought possible before.

The developing world is going to get its prosperity (GDPs are already rising fast) the way the West did and there is nothing going to stop them. The Clime Syndicate will be outed. 40yrs of hysterics on Global warming catastrophes that have shown no signs of happening will be struck dumb.

Wouldn’t you know it. The only incontrovertible evidence of CO2 climate change is the Magnificent Global Greening and it junior partner bumper crops.

This compelling story is readily understandable to even the drop out or the designer-brained minions. Nothing bad is going to happen that we can’t fix. On the contrary, the wisest bet is on a Garden of Eden, prosperity for all at a time when population stops growing (almost here at present numbers). That will finish the totality crowd, Malthusians and the woke vision real quick.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 10, 2021 1:05 pm

“new coal is being developed at rates not thought possible before”

Sounds like a great investment opportunity!

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 10, 2021 1:35 pm

Re 8.5 scenario, I meant only in terms of CO2, not what they think is going to happen because of it. In a way, convincing people that the CO2 is going to keep rising regardless of what damaging stuff we do to ourselves in the West may be the only way stop this insanity. Just make sure we don’t allow geoengineering idiocies.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 10, 2021 9:13 pm

I think anyone proposing geoengineering to cool the planet needs to be told up front that failure means gruesome William Wallace type death

In the public square

Right before all the rest of us die

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
June 10, 2021 11:43 pm

My concern is that so far, the only geo-engineering to tackle the apparent problem of Humans putting nasty stuff like CO2 into the atmosphere, is to pump chemicals into the atmosphere to counter-act the former!!! No brainer IMHO!!!

Climate believer
June 10, 2021 10:34 am

Ifs, buts and maybes…. nothing on that list is under threat, they are completely deluded.

Peter East
Reply to  Climate believer
June 10, 2021 2:48 pm

That’s what you get when you do modelling based on models

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Peter East
June 10, 2021 11:45 pm

Ah, but as the UK Wet Office hasted stated on numerous occasions, predicting what the climate will do in 100+ years time is easy compared to predicting what the weather will do in 3-5 days time!!! That’s how good those X-Box Lara Croft fantasy world models really are!!!

CD in Wisconsin
June 10, 2021 10:45 am

“Climate change poses the biggest long-term threat to the global economy. If no mitigating action is taken, global temperatures could rise by more than 3°C and the world economy could shrink by 18% in the next 30 years.”

More than 3 deg. C in 30 years? Funny, the UHI satellite record shows about 0.14 deg C of warming per decade. 3 X 0.14 is 0.42 deg C. My B.S. alarm is going off.

And I’m not even a scientist.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
June 10, 2021 10:55 am

Neither are they. And they don’t know what a BS alarm looks like.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  HotScot
June 10, 2021 1:08 pm

I recall once going to an event put on by the state of MA regarding forestry policies- one guy in the audience brought along his BS detector- every few minutes or so- as the main speaker gave his pitch- the alarm went off- very, very funny! The speaker though was not amused.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  HotScot
June 10, 2021 11:51 pm

Now that’s the problem with those pesky models……….no BS alarm fitted!!!

The “scientists” have lost objectivity. As an engineering student we were always taught to develop “feel”, i.e. does the calculation feel right, does the puter output feel right! If you don’t have feel you simply start to believe everything printed out of the rear end of the puter!!! Not a good practice IMHO!

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
June 10, 2021 11:32 am

Oops, UAH satellite record, not UHI.

michael hart
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
June 10, 2021 12:04 pm

CD in Wisconsin, yes you are a scientist, whether you like it or not.

You have demonstrated the essential questioneering needed. (I don’t claim to be a linguist, but questioneering seems like a good word.)

June 10, 2021 10:46 am

Klaus Schwab of Davos creation recently said of the future, after the destruction of the current economy from imposing the solution to global warming: “You will own nothing, but be happy.” A socialist paradise to be sure. We’re all equal – that is equally poor, except him and his friends of course. The destruction to the current economy by “the solution” will be so much more than the worst projected by business as usual with out the solution, why are we even talking about it?

Reply to  Terry
June 10, 2021 2:34 pm

First 1984 was turned into an instruction manual. Now the Hunger Games.

June 10, 2021 10:51 am

Utter effing fantasy. And these wasters get paid for producing this rubbish.


Reply to  HotScot
June 10, 2021 1:49 pm

This clearly was a study where the consultants that got paid to produce this dreck knew what answer they were supposed to produce before they ever accepted the fee. And also knew that if they could not produce said results they would not get paid said fee.

June 10, 2021 10:53 am

They forgot to include the impact of dying polar bears on GDP. This makes the entire study bunk as polar bear extinction is a very important aspect of global warming.

Reply to  Doonman
June 10, 2021 5:55 pm

Don’t forget the walruses falling from cliffs.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  RexAlan
June 11, 2021 12:09 am

How very dare you!!!!!! That’s an insult to those walruses who were throwing themselves over the cliffs is shear desperation & fear of impending doom from AGW!!! After all, they were among the first to be shown the puter output & pre-release screening of “An Inconvenient Truth”! SARC on!!!

Mike McMillan
June 10, 2021 10:55 am

If the sky is falling, Swiss Re’s insurance company clients can charge more for their insurance products. Not that Swiss Re have a reason to scare-monger, of course.

They’ve been doing this for years.

June 10, 2021 11:00 am

The report is Swiss cheese – full of holes.

June 10, 2021 11:07 am

Here is some of the actual cost coming your way. There’s some for me, and you, and you, and you, and ………(as Jonathan Winters backs away)

PARIS—Europe is preparing legislation that would jolt the rules of international trade by taxing imported goods based on the greenhouse gases emitted to make them, a plan that has sent shudders through the world’s supply chains and unsettled big trading partners such as the U.S., Russia and China.
The European Union plan, due to be announced next month, is generating debate ahead of a summit of the leaders of the Group of Seven rich countries in southwestern England starting Friday, where the international response to climate change is set to be a central topic.
The EU proposal would open up a new front in the fight against climate change by setting the world’s first limits on carbon in traded goods. The 27-nation bloc says it wants to stop polluting industries from shifting production outside Europe to avoid the bloc’s emissions limits and then exporting back into the EU. The proposal would also use the EU’s economic heft to send a powerful signal for other countries to start regulating carbon emissions.

Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 10, 2021 12:51 pm

Are they sure China won’t go to WTO and claim it is an illegal tarif?

June 10, 2021 11:14 am

Pouring gasoline on the fire…..Kooky Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren told a Senate Banking Subcommittee that Bitcoin is fueling climate change.
Warren called for the government to confront crypto threats “head on,” while saying a Federal Reserve-backed digital currency shows “great promise.”

“Cryptocurrency has created opportunities to scam investors, assist criminals, and worsen the climate crisis,” she said during the hearing. “The threats posed by crypto show that Congress and federal regulators can’t continue to hide out, hoping that crypto will go away. It won’t. It’s time to confront these issues head-on.”

Thankfully, Republicans pushed back on her desire for a government run crypto.

Peter W
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
June 10, 2021 2:44 pm

But of course! It takes a lot of electricity to mine bitcoin, which will obviously add to global warming, as known by those who promote this stuff!

June 10, 2021 11:18 am

Mr. Prime Minister,

The Sahara is beginning to “Green” again. For the first time in many thousand years. CO2 is plant food ! If this is CO2 Hurray ! If this is climate change, Hurray ! If we can look forward to growing food in the Alaskan, Canadian, and Russian north’s, Hurray ! If Greenland can be Green again Hurray ! If we can delay, or even stave off the next inbound Glacial Age, Hurray, three times over !

Rory Forbes
Reply to  sendergreen
June 10, 2021 12:33 pm

If we can delay, or even stave off the next inbound Glacial Age, Hurray, three times over !

I’m afraid we have never left the previous ice age. We’re in a very temporary “interglacial” period (The Holocene) that is already in its dotage (old age). We’re on borrowed time before this Goldilocks period ends. Temperatures have been declining steadily since the Holocene Thermal Optimum over 8000 years ago. As long as we have ice caps we’re in an ice age.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rory Forbes
Reply to  sendergreen
June 10, 2021 12:47 pm

The sub-sahara is increasingly green. The Sahara desert is not currently decreasing in area, nor beginning to green despite what a recent WUWT post implied having cited someone else’s mistake confusing research specifically about sub-sahara greening with the word sahara.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  gringojay
June 10, 2021 1:13 pm

hmmmm…. well, as the sub-sahara greens, then, perchance, the southern part of the sahara will become the new sub-sahara, etc., etc.

Mike Dubrasich
June 10, 2021 11:21 am

“…lazy assumptions that warmer weather will cut crop yields…”

Those aren’t lazy assumptions; they’re completely ignorant lies. Warmer is better for agriculture. The warmest places on the globe are also the most productive per acre. Brazil is having records crop yields smack dab on the Equator. The most productive ag land in the US is in the Imperial Valley. Mesopotamia, one hot mothering place, is also the mother of agriculture. Bangladesh feeds 165,000,000 residents and exports food crops.

Switzerland imports food. The 8,600,000 people in Switzerland cannot feed themselves. Their climate is too cold.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
June 10, 2021 1:15 pm

There are different crops adapted to different temperature niches. And there are particular temperature (including day and night differentials) characteristics associated with maximum yield for many key food crops. I’m not sure whether the USA grain and corn/maize farms hold the title to “most productive per acre”, but those farms are not exactly “the warmest places on the globe”.

If anyone can comment on what the annual temperature climate variation was like in Mesopotamia when agriculture arose there I am curious. Off hand I seem to think Mesopotamia was significantly wetter and that, in general, the resilient settlement patterns were near wet lands. As I understand it people survived by catching aquatic creatures and gathered vegetation; then when vegetation reappeared in spots with suitable soil moisture from waste residue some nurtured the new growth and eventually some progressed to deliberate plantings (with care until edible, then protecting small site, over time selection for preferred traits and in time seed/cuttings exchange with trade partners to introduce additional kinds of plants).

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  gringojay
June 10, 2021 2:39 pm

Read my words again GJ. I did not say US farms are the “warmest place on the globe”. The Imperial Valley, a place as hot as Death Valley, is the most productive in the US. Equatorial farms are the most productive globally. Western agriculture arose in Mesopotamia during the Holocene Climatic Optimum when it was warmer even than now. Does that satisfy your curiosity?

Off hand, your theories about the origins of agriculture are not supported by any research by anybody. It’s dream weaving.

The facts remain: the warmest places are the most productive agriculturally and biologically. All our major food crops are tropical in origin. No civilization has ever relied on tundra berries. A warmer planet would be more productive, not less.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
June 10, 2021 4:43 pm

Imperial Valley is the most productive of vegetables and fruit – over 75% water content. Grain growers in places not “as hot” produce more.

Globally temperate wheat production out stripped tropical rice production if you look up that data. Your theory about superior equatorial productivity applies to yams and sugarcane.

Agriculture seems to have arisen in mire than one part of the globe. You cite Mesopotamia which is 33 degrees north if the equator and that is not tropical.

I am not sure about you writing style and from phrasing get the impression you are trying to be condescending. If so, quite unimpressive since I intended to politely engage your declarative statements.

I will close pointing out to any WUWT readers, who may not know, that around 6000 years ago the water body mapped now off current southern Iraq then extended about 400 Km north; in those areas settlements were not so much along river banks stretching out across the plains as on high ground with access to marshes. This water world would have been beyond the current Tigris/Euphrates river confluence; Babylon (exemplifying sophistication about irrigation) didn’t come along until around 2,500 years ago as the water receded and sedimentation occurred.

Last edited 1 year ago by gringojay
Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  gringojay
June 10, 2021 7:09 pm

About 175,000 tons of Imperial Valley Desert Durum wheat are produced each year in that valley. One advantage that warm places have agriculturally is that they can harvest multiple rotations. For instance, in the IV farmers get six cuttings of alfalfa per year. Here in E. Oregon we usually get one, and in good years two.

I’m not trying to be condescending. The topic of the post is The Economic Costs Of Climate Change. SRI claimed “heat stress can lead to crop failures”. I pointed out that such a claim is false and provided evidence. Additional warmth leads to agricultural abundance

If you wish to argue that point, go ahead. Don’t veer off the topic.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
June 10, 2021 9:43 pm

As per FAO 2012 data it was wheat in France that yielded an average of 8 metric tons per hectare which was the most productive among top 6 global wheat growers, it was maize in the USA that yielded an average of 7.8 metric tons per hectare which was the most productive among top 6 global maize growers, and it was rice in China that yielded an average of 6.73 metric tons per hectare which was the most productive among top 6 global rice growers (incidentally Bangladesh 2012 average was 2.93 metric tons rice per hectare being grown on about 75% of it’s farm land).

France is obviously not tropical, nor is the USA corn belt. For 2012 maize non-tropical Argentina came in 2nd at 5.83 metric tons maize per hectare, then Brazil at 5.1 metric tons maize, then Mexico at 3.18 metric tons maize, then India at 3.04 metric tons and Africa averaged 1.98 metric tons per hectare.

Heat stress is a well recognized plant phenomena. Back in 1994 75 Australian wheat cultivars were studied for this and 3 days over 40* centigrade reduced kernel mass by up to 23%.

I’ll refer now to 2017 “Heat stress effects and management in wheat: a revue”; free full text available on-line. When day temperature is 34*Celsius and night temperature is 26*Celsius at the wheat grain filling stage grain yield and individual grain weight is decreased. When anthesis is complete (flowers open) from 10-20 days if day temperature is 37*Celsius and night temperature 28*Celsius wheat is negatively impacted in regard to both fresh and dry weight, kernel size and yield being reduced.

You cite Imperial Valley wheat crop being 175,000 tons of durum wheat. I feel it necessary to point out that durum wheat is planted in the Imperial Valley in December/mid-January and that is because growers know that if they plant too late their grain yields are reduced if during grain filling stage their wheat plants experience “heat stress”.

Last edited 1 year ago by gringojay
June 10, 2021 11:34 am

Joe Biden must have told Greta “Hold My Beer” when she claimed that ”Climate Change” will reach the point of no return in less than 10 years….

comment image

Mike Lowe
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
June 10, 2021 12:46 pm

“Staff” ten d to ay what they think their boss wants them to say. In Biden’s case, he wants them to say what other people have told him is best for the Democrats hopes of re-election. MAGA!

Joel O'Bryan
June 10, 2021 11:36 am

The benefits of fossil fuel use in any technological society are approximately 100% of GDP.
One cannot even build a single nuclear reactor, with all the steel, concrete and exotic material needed, without large infusions of fossil fuels at every step of construction and maintenance and uranium fuel mining and production.
One cannot build a single hydroelectric dam, penstocks, and turbines and generators without massive fossil fuel use at every step of construction.
One cannot build a single multi-megawatt wind turbine or solar panel without massive fossil fuel use in the manufacture of the materials and the construction of sites and support structures and steel and aluminum, and carbon composites in the blades.

Liberal retards ignoring fossil fuel use at the heart of our economy, the macroscale version of The NorthFace lunacy on fossil fuels, doesn’t make it go away.

Last edited 1 year ago by Joel O’Bryan
Mike Lowe
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 10, 2021 12:49 pm

And you cannot build a single EV without using much fossil fuel in the process, or construct windmills to provide the unreliable power supply to keep them running some of the time.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Mike Lowe
June 10, 2021 1:54 pm

Everything in our modern economy is utterly and completely dependent on fossil fuel extraction and then burning or conversion of the oil, natural gas, or liquid gas distillate to anoither form that almost always liberates large amounts of CO2.
Every bit of concrete, aluminum, copper and steel production is hugely coal and or natural gas dependent.

It is utterly demoralizing at how stupid-ignorant our society is becoming of these basic facts of energy and oil and gas, for everything we depend on ttoday from food to plastics to clothing and electricity. A creeping ignorance due largely to a steady creeping indoctrination, not education, in our schools and universities.

June 10, 2021 11:47 am
June 10, 2021 11:52 am

While America Sleeps, China Is Stealing The Farm

American farmers are asleep as a thief strips machinery, barn, bins, and fields of all valuables—and then returns for more. China has breached the inner walls of the U.S. agriculture industry in what has arguably been the most expansive heist in farming history, and is currently attempting to steal or hack every conceivable facet of U.S. agriculture technology…

Last edited 1 year ago by TEWS_Pilot
Peter W
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
June 10, 2021 2:50 pm

And they are building more coal burning power plants to increase the amount of CO2 in their atmosphere and thereby improve their agricultural productivity even further.

June 10, 2021 11:53 am

Paul ==> I see the greatest error in the report being the Time Period of Prediction — 2050. That is only 29 years in the future. Almost NONE of the predictions are physically possible in such a short period of time.

In the last 30 years CO2 concentrations have increased only 60 PPM. Yet Swiss Re predict, for RCP 8.5 around 530 ppm by 2050 an increase of 110 ppm — which would require emissions to instantly double and stay doubled for the entire period.

I’m anxious to see what Pielke Jr. has to say . . . . .

(Not that I’m not grateful and impressed by all the work that you’ve put in . . .)

John in Oz
Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 10, 2021 4:49 pm


I thought this was the most egregious error:

different scenarios compared to a world without climate change

Are they claiming there was no climate change nor climate-related emergencies/disasters prior to the modern era?

What are they going to blame for floods/heat waves/ cold waves/ hurricanes/etc after their plans to ‘decarbonise’ are fulfilled?

Where is their analysis of naturally-caused climate change effects in order to quantify the anthropogenic effects that they are saying we need to ameliorate?

Who is John Galt? (perhaps we should all be using this as a tag line until sanity prevails)

Thanks for your input to this forum.

Stephen Lindsay-Yule
June 10, 2021 11:56 am

Don’t trust any of it. Based on RCP(Representative Concentration Pathways) in computer modelling. Where the window 8-14µm (714-1250 cm-1 536) is ignored. 157K 0.29K/cm-1 both LW from the sun and from the earth. 714-960 (global mean). Earths thermal heat 714cm (207K -66°C) 104w-m² – 960 (278.4K 5.3°C) 71.3K 236 w-m² 3.3w/K. Assumed all absorbed by carbon dioxide and water vapor. No. These atoms carbon and hydrogen absorb outside the window. 15µm for CO2, and 4.5µm and 13µm (769cm-1) for water vapor.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Stephen Lindsay-Yule
June 10, 2021 12:04 pm

using wave numbers will confuse lots of non-technical types.

June 10, 2021 12:38 pm

The data shown uses the term current trajectory. Without using a dictionary a trajectory implies that a future outcome is determined by historic circumstances , a use of past data to establish a trend which is then used to predict future scenarios. The problem is that the trajectories when it comes to future global temperatures are souped up to get outcomes that are based on predetermined biases. Whilst they ascribe some probabilities to these outcomes they are equally random because these have seemingly picked out of thin air. There is nothing that is trajectorial about this data.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Zigmaster
June 10, 2021 2:43 pm

They don’t even mean “trajectory.”
If they were to use an actual trajectory of temperature observation, they would arrive at ~1.7 ºC/per doubling of CO2, as shown by Lewis and Curry.

What they really mean is the contrived fake trajectory from the science fantasy of climate computer animations.

Bruce Cobb
June 10, 2021 12:41 pm

The economic costs of “carbon” – $0,
The economic benefits of CO2 and fossil fuels – priceless.
CarbonCard. What’s in your wallet?

Paul Johnson
June 10, 2021 2:10 pm

Note that this report does not suggest that GDP would actually “shrink”; only that it would not grow as quickly. Put in terms of time, the worst-case scenario would delay global wealth and productivity growth by 3 to 5 years over the next 30. No one would notice.
Also, the baseline for relative growth is 0 degrees. This implies that there will be NO natural warming and it’s all due to human activity.

Rick C
June 10, 2021 2:19 pm

To paraphrase the study: Future warming will cause greater economic losses, therefore insurance premiums will need to be increased, therefore reinsurance premiums insurers pay will need to be increased. Alternatively, trillions will need to be spend on non-fossil fuel energy which will require purchasing insurance for all that wind and solar infrastructure. The future of the Reinsurance business looks very bright indeed. I’d better buy some Swiss RE stock right now.

June 10, 2021 2:29 pm

What are the odds of CO2 driving up temperatures even 1C more?
Somewhere between 0 and 0.0

June 10, 2021 2:32 pm

I think it’s time to give the lifetime achievement award for policy stupidity to Sen. Edward Markey…..

Lawmakers divided over climate change proposals in infrastructure package (

NNPC: Lack Of Investment Could Push Oil To $200 (

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 10, 2021 2:46 pm

Markey has earned that award many times over the past few decades. His IQ is only slightly above that of the obviously dumbest US Senator, Senator “Crazy Mazi” Hirono of Hawaii.

June 10, 2021 2:57 pm

Lomborg, Shellenberger, Koonin etc have quoted the UN IPCC data that tells us that people will be much wealthier and healthier by 2050 and beyond.
But the impacts of so called climate change will be minimal or perhaps a penalty of 2 to 3% if we do nothing.
So instead of 2.6 times richer we’ll only be about 2.3 times. OH the HORROR of it, SARC.
Also life expectancy will be much higher and average GLOBAL L Exp will be over 80 by 2100. Today the average is 73 and only wealthy countries citizens live to 80+.

Van Doren
June 10, 2021 3:26 pm

-18% if no mitigating actions are taken (3.2 °C increase);
-4% if Paris Agreement targets are met (below 2 °C increase)

So, Paris targets, which will achieve absolutely nothing, somehow will make the world 1.2K colder until 2050? And this will gain us 0.45% economic growth annually? It can’t get more ridiculous than that.
If we suppose that AGW theory is true, we would need to reach 3840ppm for 3.2K temperature increase, and 1674 for 2K. So, Paris accord can spare us over 2000ppm?
Even to reach 1674ppm we would need to increase our emissions almost twentyfold (from 35Gt to 650Gt), and hope that all the CO2 stays there.

June 10, 2021 3:29 pm

Here’s Dr Rosling’s BBC video of 200 countries over 200 years if you have 5 minutes.
It starts at 1810 and ends in 2010 and just shows how fossil fuels have made the ENTIRE WORLD a lot HEALTHIER and WEALTHIER in just 200 years .
Please WAKE UP to their BS and fra-d.

Van Doren
Reply to  Neville
June 10, 2021 3:52 pm

What he says about “colonized” and “independent” is of course BS. We know that previously colonized countries do better than countries which were never colonized, or colonized for a shorter period of time.

Reply to  Van Doren
June 10, 2021 4:48 pm

Van Doren I’m sure you’re correct, but what about his data over 200 years?
In 1810 both rich and poor had a life exp of under 40 and yet just 200 years later that has increased to about 70 ( 2010) and just 11 more years is 73 in 2021.
This 5 min BBC video wrecks all of their so called EXISTENTIAL THREAT COMPLETELY and STILL FFs rule the roost with over 80% of total Global energy generation.
And our planet has been GREENING for at least 30 years. See NASA, CSIRO etc. A WIN, WIN.

June 10, 2021 6:36 pm

Pure delusional advocacy and socialist fantasies.

“Our analysis shows the benefit of investing in a net-zero economy. For example, adding just 10% to the USD 6.3 trillion of annual global infrastructure investments would limit the average temperature increase to below 2°C. This is just a fraction of the loss in global GDP that we face if we don’t take appropriate action.“

Swiss RE has ignored history and the benefits to life during Optimums.
Swiss RE has also ignored reality; i.e. crop benefits from higher CO₂ levels and the resulting higher yields.
This is before getting into the potential for multiple crops per year if the Earth actually did warm more than a degree C.

Also note that Swiss RE has ignored all of the real world scenarios calculating the actual benefit of meeting Paris Agreement targets…
In the Swiss RE dreamland, hypothesized warming is mightily countered by abundant dollars.

“Mitigating climate change requires a whole menu of measures. More carbon- pricing policies combined with incentives for nature-based and carbon-offsetting solutions are needed, as well as international convergence on taxonomy for green and sustainable investments.”

N.B. Swiss RE’s version of the CO₂ dilemma requires taxes and imagined costs needed to reduce use of carbon… Not CO₂.
Food? High carbon contents.
Clothing? High carbon content.
Heating and cooling? Very high carbon usages.
Let alone the carbon intensive processes needed to provide those items.

I suspect there is where Swiss RE envisions their making a pile of cash, serving as a buyer/seller/middleman for carbon cash penalty schemes.

“39 countries have ecosystems in a fragile state on more than a third of their land – Malta, Israel, Cyprus, Bahrain and Kazakhstan have the lowest Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services (BES) ranking”

Swiss RE plays mind games with their purposely false negatives producing models. With bio-diversity bafflegab, they are playing games with environmentally deluded.
e.g. Israel. Israel took over nearly barren desert and with careful planning and implementation have restored desert to arable lands. Only a truly deluded activist would overlook the accomplishments of decades to make their bizarre claims.

Never mind that bio-diversity goes down as urban development increases.

Yet, Swiss RE blames carbon, bio-diversity is dependent on carbon. Are the yahoos at Swiss RE going to make money of selling carbon credits to people building their homes?

Whatever Swiss RE recommends for finance, invest in the opposite.

Izaak Walton
June 10, 2021 8:08 pm

Paul states that:
Coming back to the UK, it is simply absurd to claim that we would be £50 billion better off with the climate of the Little Ice Age, Our agriculture would be severely hit, mortality higher, and energy demand greater.”

well what is absurd is pretending that is what Swiss Re are saying. What they are saying is that by 2050 the UK economy will be 0.1% smaller due to climate change. Or in other words it might be 5.65 trillion pounds rather than 5.7 trillion. Which to put in perspective is equivalent to Jeff Bezos moving from one country to another.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 10, 2021 8:51 pm

So, you confirm that climate change will have little economic impact.

Good on you Izaak

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
June 10, 2021 11:00 pm

No. I am simply stating what is in the Swiss Re report. They are predicting a 0.1% decline in the UK’s GDP in 2050. Lots of other countries are predicted to be worse off and the report predicts that the impact will grow in time.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 11, 2021 9:55 am

Izaak, the Swiss Re report is nonsense from start to finish. Therefore, using any prediction they make is pointless.

June 11, 2021 12:19 am

There is also the implied risk of more extreme weather, such as droughts, heavy rain and storms. But there is no evidence whatsoever that any of this has happened so far.

Well of course it has: the flood events in the UK since 2000 show that and I’m sure they are reflected in Swiss Re’s UK payouts.

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
June 11, 2021 9:53 am

Griff, there has been no global increase in extreme weather events which means that you are talking nonsense.

Mike Maguire
June 11, 2021 5:28 am

Using their model, having another Little Ice Age would cause massive gains in GDP (-:

Reply to  Mike Maguire
June 11, 2021 8:29 am

what they are saying is climate change is going to add massive costs on top of the sort of costs seen historically and in the 20th century. Not that we’d gain cash if we went back to the 17th century climate

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
June 11, 2021 9:57 am

Since the Swiss Re report is utter nonsense, using any of their predictions is a waste of time.

June 11, 2021 7:13 am

They get paid for this! Words like could are disqualifying when predicting disaster and promoting drastic changes to way of life and expectancy of the future.

As stated in the article, shouldn’t we have seen some of this by now? Especially since many of the predictions have come and gone without happening.

With all the rain we have had my grass needs mowing. Not unusual.

June 11, 2021 8:06 am

“Typically, cold regions see longer, and warm regions shorter growing seasons”

What? Am I reading that right?

That statement doesn’t seem to match the reality I have lived gardening in Southern California and in North Carolina. NC is cooler, and my growing season is noticeably shorter. From that statement, Alaska should be able to grow stuff all year. What is the basis for that statement?

June 11, 2021 6:54 pm

-11% if further mitigating actions are taken (2°C increase);
-4% if Paris Agreement targets are met (below 2°C increase)
GDP takes an 11% hit at 2C and a 4% hit at under 2C? So coming in .01C under saves 7% of GDP? Really?

Matthew Sykes
June 12, 2021 2:09 am

Pure fantasy, CO2 increases GDP.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights