Integrated assessment models compare the costs of greenhouse gas mitigation with damages from climate change to evaluate the social welfare implications of climate policy proposals and inform optimal emissions reduction trajectories. However, these models have been criticized for lacking a strong empirical basis for their damage functions, which do little to alter assumptions of sustained gross domestic product (GDP) growth, even under extreme temperature scenarios1,2,3. We implement empirical estimates of temperature effects on GDP growth rates in the DICE model through two pathways, total factor productivity growth and capital depreciation4,5. This damage specification, even under optimistic adaptation assumptions, substantially slows GDP growth in poor regions but has more modest effects in rich countries. Optimal climate policy in this model stabilizes global temperature change below 2 °C by eliminating emissions in the near future and implies a social cost of carbon several times larger than previous estimates6. A sensitivity analysis shows that the magnitude of climate change impacts on economic growth, the rate of adaptation, and the dynamic interaction between damages and GDP are three critical uncertainties requiring further research. In particular, optimal mitigation rates are much lower if countries become less sensitive to climate change impacts as they develop, making this a major source of uncertainty and an important subject for future research.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Open Access articles citing this article.
Nature Open Access 01 September 2022
Climatic Change Open Access 01 June 2022
Nature Climate Change Open Access 12 July 2021
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Pindyck, R. S. Uncertain outcomes and climate change policy. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 63, 289–303 (2012).
Stern, N. The structure of economic modeling of the potential impacts of climate change: Grafting gross underestimation of risk onto already narrow science models. J. Econ. Lit. 51, 838–859 (2013).
Revesz, R. L. et al. Global warming: Improve economic models of climate change. Nature 508, 173–175 (2014).
Dell, M., Jones, B. F. & Olken, B. A. Temperature shocks and economic growth: Evidence from the last half century. Am. Econ. J. Macroecon. 4, 66–95 (2012).
Nordhaus, W. D. & Sztorc, P. DICE 2013R: Introduction and User’s Manual 1–102 (2013); http://www.econ.yale.edu/˜nordhaus/homepage/documents/DICE_Manual_103113r2.pdf
IAWG, U. Technical support document: Technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under executive order 12866. 1–22 (US government, 2013)
Deschênes, O. & Greenstone, M. Climate change, mortality, and adaptation: Evidence from annual fluctuations in weather in the US. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 3, 152–185 (2011).
Schlenker, W. & Roberts, D. L. Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to US corn yields under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 106, 15594–15598 (2009).
Dell, M., Jones, B. F. & Olken, B. A. What do we learn from the weather? The new climate-economy literature. J. Econ. Lit. 52, 740–798 (2014).
Hope, C. W. The marginal impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: An integrated assessment model incorporating the IPCC’s five reasons for concern. Integr. Assess. J. 6, 19–56 (2006).
Anthoff, D. & Tol, R. S. J. The Climate Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation and Distribution (FUND), Technical Description, Version 3.6. (2012); http://www.fund-model.org/versions
Moyer, E., Woolley, M. M., Matteson, N. J., Glotter, M. M. & Weisbach, D. Drivers of uncertainty in the Social Cost of Carbon. J. Leg. Stud. 43, 401–425 (2014).
Bansal, R. & Ochoa, M. Temperature, Aggregate Risk, and Expected Returns (National Bureau for Economic Research, 2011).
Hsiang, S. M., Burke, M. & Miguel, E. Quantifying the influence of climate on human conflict. Science 341, 1235367 (2013).
Graff Zivin, J. & Neidell, M. Temperature and the allocation of time: Implications for climate change. J. Labor Econ. 32, 1–26 (2014).
Dietz, S. & Stern, N. Endogenous Growth, Convexity of Damages and Climate Risk: How Nordhaus’ Framework Supports Deep Cuts in Carbon Emissions (Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy, 2014).
Nordhaus, W. D. Economic aspects of global warming in a post-Copenhagen environment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 11721–11726 (2010).
Moore, F. C. & Lobell, D. B. The adaptation potential of European agriculture in response to climate change. Nature Clim. Change 4, 610–614 (2014).
Hornbeck, R. The enduring impact of the American dust bowl: Short and long-run adjustments to environmental catastrophe. Am. Econ. Rev. 102, 1477–1507 (2012).
Hsiang, S. M. & Narita, D. Adaptation to cyclone risk: Evidence from the global cross-section. Clim. Change Econ. 03 (2012).
Lobell, D. B., Banziger, M., Magorokosho, C. & Vivek, B. Nonlinear heat effects on African maize as evidenced by historical yield trials. Nature Clim. Change 1, 42–45 (2011).
Keller, K., McInerney, D. & Bradford, D. F. Carbon dioxide sequestration: How much and when? Climatic Change 88, 267–291 (2008).
Ha-Duong, M., Grubb, M. & Hourcade, J. Influence of socioeconomic inertia and uncertainty on optimal CO2-emission abatement. Nature 390, 270–273 (1997).
Richels, R. G. & Blanford, G. J. The value of technological advance in decarbonizing the US economy. Energy Econ. 30, 2930–2946 (2008).
Hogan, W. W. & Jorgenson, D. W. Productivity trends and the cost of reducing CO2 emissions. Energy J. 12, 67–85 (1991).
Weitzman, M. L. GHG targets as insurance against catastrophic climate damages. J. Public Econ. Theory 14, 221–244 (2012).
Stern, N. & Taylor, C. Climate change: Risk, ethics, and the Stern review. Science 317, 203–204 (2007).
Stanton, E. A. Negishi welfare weights in integrated assessment models: The mathematics of global inequality. Clim. Change 107, 417–432 (2010).
NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) (Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2014); http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt
IPCC Summary for Policymakers in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
We would like to thank J. Koomey, C. Reichard and M. Craxton for comments on the manuscript. F.C.M. is supported by the Neukermans Family Foundation Stanford Interdisciplinary Graduate Fellowship.
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
About this article
Cite this article
Moore, F., Diaz, D. Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policy. Nature Clim Change 5, 127–131 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2481
This article is cited by
Climatic Change (2022)
Identifying key processes and sectors in the interaction between climate and socio-economic systems: a review toward integrating Earth–human systems
Progress in Earth and Planetary Science (2021)
Nature Climate Change (2021)