I read today that the EU is using an estimate of US$68 per tonne of CO2 emissions for the purported cost of the damages done by CO2. This is known by a Newspeak term as the “Social Cost Of Carbon”.
It made me wonder—using this estimate, what is the overall total estimated damage done by humans from emitting CO2?
The answer is $97 TRILLION dollars since 1950.
YIKES! That’s about five times the 2020 US Gross Domestic Product (the value of everything produced in the US during that year).
So I thought I’d take a look at the various largest weather-related disasters. I got the big-disaster data from Wikipedia here and arranged it by type of disaster. All values are in 2020 dollars, that is to say, they’re adjusted for inflation. Here is the result.
| DAMAGE (TRILLIONS) | DISASTER |
| DROUGHTS | |
| $0.116 | 1988–89 North American drought |
| $0.060 | 2012–13 North American drought |
| $0.032 | 1980 United States heat wave |
| $0.003 | 2017 Montana wildfires |
| $0.21 | TOTAL DROUGHTS |
| EUROPEAN WINDSTORMS | |
| $0.028 | Cyclones Lothar and Martin |
| $0.031 | Cyclones Daria, Vivian, and Wiebke |
| $0.013 | Cyclone Kyrill |
| $0.007 | Cyclone Xynthia |
| $0.008 | Cyclone Klaus |
| $0.008 | Cyclone Gudrun |
| $0.009 | Great Storm of 1987 |
| $0.10 | TOTAL EUROPEAN WINDSTORMS |
| FLOODS | |
| $0.053 | 2011 Thailand floods |
| $0.032 | 2020 China floods |
| $0.028 | 2002 European floods |
| $0.031 | Great Flood of 1993 |
| $0.013 | 2016 Louisiana floods |
| $0.012 | June 2008 Midwest floods |
| $0.007 | 2013 Alberta floods |
| $0.003 | 2019 Midwestern U.S. floods |
| $0.18 | TOTAL FLOODS |
| HAILSTORMS | |
| $0.003 | 2017 Minneapolis hailstorm |
| $0.002 | 2017 Denver hailstorm |
| $0.001 | 2020 Calgary hailstorm |
| $0.01 | TOTAL HAILSTORMS |
| SEVERE STORMS | |
| $0.003 | June 2012 North American derecho |
| $0.012 | August 2020 Midwest derecho |
| $0.02 | TOTAL SEVERE STORMS |
| TORNADOES | |
| $0.012 | 2011 Super Outbreak |
| $0.006 | Tornado outbreak sequence of May 2003 |
| $0.003 | 2011 Joplin tornado |
| $0.003 | Tornado outbreak sequence of May 2019 |
| $0.002 | Tornado outbreak of March 6–7, 2017 |
| $0.03 | TOTAL TORNADOES |
| TROPICAL CYCLONES | |
| $0.167 | Hurricane Katrina |
| $0.133 | Hurricane Harvey |
| $0.098 | Hurricane Maria |
| $0.079 | Hurricane Sandy |
| $0.069 | Hurricane Irma |
| $0.050 | Hurricane Ida |
| $0.046 | Hurricane Ike |
| $0.036 | Hurricane Wilma |
| $0.051 | Hurricane Andrew |
| $0.036 | Hurricane Ivan |
| $0.026 | Hurricane Michael |
| $0.019 | Hurricane Laura |
| $0.025 | Hurricane Rita |
| $0.024 | Hurricane Charley |
| $0.016 | Hurricane Matthew |
| $0.017 | Hurricane Irene |
| $0.014 | Cyclone Amphan |
| $0.016 | Cyclone Nargis |
| $0.012 | Typhoon Fitow |
| $0.019 | Typhoon Mireille |
| $0.014 | Hurricane Frances |
| $0.020 | Hurricane Hugo |
| $0.015 | Hurricane Georges |
| $0.013 | Typhoon Songda |
| $0.013 | Tropical Storm Allison |
| $0.010 | Hurricane Gustav |
| $0.011 | Hurricane Jeanne |
| $0.008 | Hurricane Eta |
| $0.008 | Hurricane Sally |
| $0.008 | Typhoon Rammasun |
| $0.010 | Hurricane Floyd |
| $0.008 | Typhoon Morakot |
| $0.010 | Hurricane Mitch |
| $0.009 | Typhoon Prapiroon |
| $0.008 | Hurricane Isabel |
| $0.005 | Hurricane Dorian |
| $0.008 | Typhoon Herb |
| $0.005 | Tropical Storm Imelda |
| $0.008 | Hurricane Opal |
| $0.005 | Typhoon Haiyan |
| $0.006 | Cyclone Gonu |
| $0.005 | Hurricane Manuel |
| $0.004 | Cyclone Yasi |
| $0.006 | Hurricane Iniki |
| $0.007 | Hurricane Gilbert |
| $0.002 | Cyclone Winston |
| $0.002 | Typhoon Bopha |
| $0.002 | Typhoon Ketsana |
| $0.005 | Cyclone Tracy |
| $1.18 | TOTAL TROPICAL CYCLONES |
| WINTER STORMS | |
| $0.020 | February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm |
| $0.010 | 1993 Storm of the Century |
| $0.002 | 2011 Groundhog Day blizzard |
| $0.03 | TOTAL WINTER STORMS |
| WILDFIRES | |
| $0.072 | 2019–20 Australian bushfire season |
| $0.025 | 2018 California wildfires |
| $0.016 | October 2017 Northern California wildfires |
| $0.010 | 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire |
| $0.008 | Black Saturday bushfires |
| $0.002 | Cedar Fire |
| $0.001 | 2016 Great Smoky Mountains wildfires |
| $0.001 | 2011 Slave Lake wildfire |
| $0.14 | TOTAL WILDFIRES |
| $1.89 | OVERALL TOTAL ($ trillion) |
Hmmm … no matter how you slice it, that’s less than two trillion dollars …
Now, to be sure, there must be a variety of smaller disasters that didn’t make the list. So let’s be conservative, and call the disaster total four times that, or $8 trillion dollars.

To check that value, I looked at the EMDAT Disaster Database. It contains no less than 11,654 detailed records of flood, wildfire, drought, storm, and extreme temperature disasters since 1950. The smallest of these had damages of $4.6 million dollars ($0.0000046 trillion). So it’s catching even very small disasters.
In 2020 dollars, the EMDAT database says that the total cost of those disasters since 1950 is about $10 trillion dollars.
So let us make the obviously incorrect and untenable assumption that 100% of those disaster costs are ascribable to the evil influence of CO2. It’s obviously not true by an order of magnitude or more, but let’s assume that each and every disaster is all 100% from CO2 for the purposes of discussion.
And given even that incorrect and wildly exaggerated assumption, the obvious question is … where is the other $87 trillion dollars of purported CO2 damages from weather-related disasters since 1950?
And it gets much worse if we don’t assume that 100% of the responsibility is due to CO2. Suppose we say (still an exaggeration) that 10% of the responsibility comes from CO2. That would mean that we are missing, not $87 trillion in disasters, but $960 trillion in disasters …
(Let me say that this kind of error, of just picking a random goal like “Net-Zero 2050” or just calculating a value for something like the “Social Cost of Carbon” and not testing the result for reasonableness against real-world data, is far too common in the world of climate “science”. I discuss this issue about “Net-Zero 2050” in my post “Bright Green Impossibilities“.)
And to repeat … where are the missing $87 trillion dollars in damages purportedly caused by so-called “climate disasters”?
My best to all,
w.
AS ALWAYS: I ask that when you comment you quote the exact words you are discussing. I can defend my own words. I cannot defend your interpretation of my words. Thanks.
Shouldn’t they call it the Socialist Cost of Carbon?
Score: $97 trillion for Willis, $1.35 in the hole for the eco loons.
This may have been pointed out already, but is the $960 Trillion a typo – shouldn’t be $96 trillion?
“And it gets much worse if we don’t assume that 100% of the responsibility is due to CO2. Suppose we say (still an exaggeration) that 10% of the responsibility comes from CO2. That would mean that we are missing, not $87 trillion in disasters, but $960 trillion in disasters” …
Sorry for the lack of clarity. But it’s not a typo.
If CO2 is only 10% the cause of the disasters, how much in the way of disasters would it take for the 10% CO2 share to be $96 trillion?
Best regards,
w.
Got it – thanks. Probably clear to others, just not clear to me!
I think it’s even worse than you imagine!
The Global Social Cost of Carbon: 418 USD/tCO2 according to this website: https://www.downtoearth.org.in/dte-infographics/social_cost_corbon/index.html
There definition is that the Social Cost of Carbon reflects the income that society will lose in the future for each tonne of CO2 emitted. They make some attempt to quantify the benefits and even show that some countries, such as UK, Canada, Russia and Germany, will benefit from releasing CO2.
I believe it’s one of those things which has it’s own positive feedback loop built in!
This is known by a Newspeak term as
the “Social Cost Of Carbon”making stuff upFixed it.
The suitable, poetic answer to the question that Willis asks in the title of his above article:
“Gone to graveyards, everyone
Oh, when will they ever learn?”
(With a tip of the hat to song writers Pete Singer and Joe Hickerson.)
Oops . . . my bad: make that song writer Pete Seeger.
Since at times I’ve made my living with my guitar, I’m glad to see that there are folks that caught the reference …
Thanks,
w.
Willis, I say this in all honesty and with greatest respect: you never cease to amaze.
Super kudos to anyone that has, at one time or another, supported themselves as a musician.
Can’t say it was much of a living, but it kept the wolf from my door …
w.
Meanwhile we are well past the height of the tropical storm season and there are not tropical storms or even a single “invest” in the Atlantic, Caribbean, or Gulf of Mexico. And it has been very quiet for two weeks. Global ACE is 95% of “normal”.
Their figure may well be wrong, but your argument doesn’t show it is. CO2 lasts for a long time in the atmosphere, so the cost of CO2 released today isn’t born today, it’s born over a very long time into the future.
David, In fact, half of a pulse of CO2 is sequestered within 15 years, two-thirds in thirty years, 90% in 70 years. So we should have seen lots and lots of damages already … but we haven’t.
The other problem with your claim is that after 70 years only ~10% of the CO2 remains … so ascribing huge damages to that small amount leads to the same problem. Not enough damages on the planet to let it be that hight.
w.
Interesting analysis, but of course missing the obvious. As you know, the warming from GHG is exactly what has been calculated, although due to other things the measured temperature increase is less than the real one. And it therefore follows that the cost of those natural disasters are as calculated, but due to other things the experienced cost is less than the real cost. I mean, do you really believe that those smartest minds in the world would not know this?
1) The temperature increase is NOT “what has been calculated”. Everyone agrees that the CMIP6 models all are running too hot.
2) The world has been warming, in fits and starts, since the bottom of the Little Ice Age in ~ 1700. Predicting that the warming will continue is simple trend extrapolation.
3) You say:
I have no idea what that means.
4) You say:
I have no idea what that means.
5) Finally, you say:
Ah, yes, the famous “smartest minds in the world can’t possibly be wrong” argument.
In 1949, the “smartest minds in the world” gave the inventor of the lobotomy a Nobel Prize …

Would you allow your child to have that operation? I mean, after all, it was approved by the “smartest minds in the world” …
Richard Feynman was indeed one of the “smartest minds in the world”. He observed:
That’s how science works, Anders—it’s a constant succession of the overthrowing of the existing scientific consensus approved by the “smartest minds in the world”.
Regards,
w.