Search

Rationale: Avoiding excess health damages attributable to climate change is a primary motivator for policy interventions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the health benefits of climate mitigation, as included in the policy assessment process, have been estimated without much input from health experts. Objectives: In accordance with recommendations from the National Academies in a 2017 report on approaches to update the social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG), an expert panel of 26 health researchers and climate economists gathered for a virtual technical workshop in May 2021 to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis and recommend improvements to the estimation of health impacts in economic-climate models. Methods: Regionally resolved effect estimates of unit increases in temperature on net all-cause mortality risk were generated through random-effects pooling of studies identified through a systematic review. Results: Effect estimates and associated uncertainties varied by global region, but net increases in mortality risk associated with increased average annual temperatures (ranging from 0.1% to 1.1% per 1°C) were estimated for all global regions. Key recommendations for the development and utilization of health damage modules were provided by the expert panel and included the following: not relying on individual methodologies in estimating health damages; incorporating a broader range of cause-specific mortality impacts; improving the climate parameters available in economic models; accounting for socioeconomic trajectories and adaptation factors when estimating health damages; and carefully considering how air pollution impacts should be incorporated in economic-climate models. Conclusions: This work provides an example of how subject-matter experts can work alongside climate economists in making continued improvements to SC-GHG estimates.

Workers in climate exposed industries such as agriculture, construction, and manufacturing face increased health risks of working on high temperature days and may make decisions to reduce work on high-heat days to mitigate this risk. Utilizing the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) for the period 2003 through 2018 and historical weather data, we model the relationship between daily temperature and time allocation, focusing on hours worked by high-risk laborers. The results indicate that labor allocation decisions are context specific and likely driven by supply-side factors. We do not find a significant relationship between temperature and hours worked during the Great Recession (2008-2014), perhaps due to high competition for employment, however during periods of economic growth (2003-2007, 2015-2018) we find a significant reduction in hours worked on high-heat days. During periods of economic growth, for every degree above 90 on a particular day, the average high-risk worker reduces their time devoted to work by about 2.6 minutes relative to a 90-degree day. This effect is expected to intensify in the future as temperatures rise. Applying the modeled relationships to climate projections through the end of century, we find that annual lost wages resulting from decreased time spent working on days over 90 degrees across the United States range from $36.7 to $80.0 billion in 2090 under intermediate and high emission futures, respectively.

This analysis integrates regional models of power system reliability, output from atmosphere-ocean general circulation models, and results from the Interruption Cost Estimate (ICE) Calculator to project long-run costs to electric utility customers from power interruptions under different future severe weather and electricity system scenarios. We discuss the challenges when attempting to model long-run costs to utility customers including the use of imperfect metrics to measure severe weather. Despite these challenges, initial findings show that discounted cumulative customer costs, through the middle of the century, could range from $1.5-$3.4 trillion ($2015) without aggressive undergrounding of the power system and increased utility operations and maintenance (O&M) spending and $1.5-$2.5 trillion with aggressive undergrounding and increased spending. By the end of the century, cumulative customer costs could range from $1.9-$5.6 trillion (without aggressive undergrounding and increased spending) and $2.0-$3.6 trillion (with aggressive undergrounding and increased spending). We find that, in some scenarios, aggressive undergrounding of distribution lines and increased O&M spending is not always cost-effective. We conclude by identifying important topics for follow-on research, which have the potential to improve the cost estimates of this model.

This paper develops and applies methods to quantify and monetize projected impacts on terrestrial ecosystem carbon storage and areas burned by wildfires in the contiguous United States under scenarios with and without global greenhouse gas mitigation. The MC1 dynamic global vegetation model is used to develop physical impact projections using three climate models that project a range of future conditions. We also investigate the sensitivity of future climates to different initial conditions of the climate model. Our analysis reveals that mitigation, where global radiative forcing is stabilized at 3.7 W/m 2 in 2100, would consistently reduce areas burned from 2001 to 2100 by tens of millions of hectares. Monetized, these impacts are equivalent to potentially avoiding billions of dollars (discounted) in wildfire response costs. Impacts to terrestrial ecosystem carbon storage are less uniform, but changes are on the order of billions of tons over this time period. The equivalent social value of these changes in carbon storage ranges from hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars (discounted). The magnitude of these results highlights their importance when evaluating climate policy options. However, our results also show national outcomes are driven by a few regions and results are not uniform across regions, time periods, or models. Differences in the results based on the modeling approach and across initializing conditions also raise important questions about how variability in projected climates is accounted for, especially when considering impacts where extreme or threshold conditions are important.

Climate change is expected to impact individuals' recreation choices, as changing temperatures and precipitation patterns influence participation in outdoor recreation and alternative activities. This paper empirically investigates the relationship between weather and outdoor recreation using nationally representative data from the contiguous United States. We find that across most outdoor recreation activities, participation is lowest on the coldest days [<35°F (1.7°C)] and highest at moderately high temperatures [80°–90°F (27°–32°C)]. Notable exceptions to this trend include water sports and snow and ice sports, for which participation peaks at the highest and lowest temperatures, respectively. If individuals continue to respond to temperature changes the same way that they have in the recent past, in a future climate that has fewer cool days and more moderate and hot days, our model anticipates net participation across all outdoor recreation activities will increase by 88 million trips annually at 1°C of warming (CONUS) and by up to 401 million trips at 6°C of warming, valued between $3.2 and $15.6 billion in consumer surplus annually (2010 population). The increase in trips is driven by participation in water sports; excluding water sports from future projections decreases the consumer surplus gains by approximately 75% across all modeled degrees of warming. If individuals in northern regions respond to temperature like people in southern regions currently do (a proxy for adaptation), total outdoor recreation trips will increase by an additional 17% in comparison with no adaptation at 6°C of warming. This benefit is generally not seen at lower degrees of warming. Significance Statement: We extend the extant literature in four key ways. First, we probe how impacts vary by region of the United States, revealing disparate impacts across geographies. Second, we analyze substitution patterns between alternative activity categories, which sheds light on the broader implications beyond participation in outdoor recreation. Third, we add depth to the future projection of climate impacts by considering how our projections might change under empirically informed scenarios of adaptation and acclimatization. Fourth, our analysis showcases one way in which climate change results in net benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00569.x Byline: Jeremy A. Martinich (*s.), Susan L. Solarz ([dagger]), James R. Lyons ([double dagger]) Author Affiliation: (*)Department of Environmental Studies, American University, 101 Hurst Hall, Washington, D.C. 20016, U.S.A. ([dagger])The Wilderness Society, 350 N 9th Street Suite 302, Boise, ID 83702, U.S.A. ([double dagger])Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 1425 K St. NW, Suite 1050, Washington, D.C. 20005, U.S.A. Article History: Paper submitted October 19, 2005; revised manuscript accepted May 2, 2006. Article note: (s.) Current address: 3525 Davenport St. NW, Apartment 405, Washington, D.C. 20008, U.S.A., email littlemarty33@yahoo.com