Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
Author: Goklany, Indur M.
Source: Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, December 2007 , pp. 1023-1048(26)
Publisher: Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd
Key:
- Free Content
- New Content
- Subscribed Content
- Free Trial Content
- Free Content
- New Content
- Subscribed Content
- Free Trial Content
Abstract:
Greater economic growth could lead to greater greenhouse gas emissions, while simultaneously enhancing various aspects of human well-being and the capacity to adapt to climate change. This begs the question as to whether and, if so, for how long would a richer-but-warmer world be better for well-being than poorer-but-cooler worlds. To shed light on this issue, this paper draws upon results of the "Fast Track" assessment (FTA) reported in a special issue of Global Environmental Change: Part A 14 (1): 1-99 (2004), which employed the IPCC's emissions scenarios to project future climate change and its global impacts on various determinants of human and environmental well-being. Results suggest that notwithstanding climate change, through much of this century, human well-being is likely to be highest in the richest-but-warmest (A1FI) world and lower in poorer-but-cooler worlds. With respect to environmental well-being, matters may be best under the A1FI world for some critical environmental indicators through 2085-2100, but not necessarily for others. An alternative analysis using the Stern Review's worst-case results for potential welfare losses due to climate change indicates that welfare, adjusted for market and non-market impacts of climate change and the risk of catastrophe, should be highest under the A1FI scenario, at least through 2100.Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.1260/095830507782616832
Key:
- Free Content
- New Content
- Subscribed Content
- Free Trial Content
- Free Content
- New Content
- Subscribed Content
- Free Trial Content
Click here for Page Help