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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArnellN.W., (2002). “The consequences of CO2 stabilization for the impacts of climate change,”Climatic Change53: 413–446.
2.
ArnellN.W. (2004). “Climate change and global water resources: SRES emissions and socioeconomic scenarios,”Global Environmental Change14 (1): 31–52.
3.
ArnellN.W. (2006). “Climate change and water resources: A global perspective,” in SchellnhuberH.J., Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 167–175.
4.
BhallaS.S. (2002). Imagine There Is a No Country: Poverty, Growth and Inequality in the Era of Globalization, Washington, DC, Institute for International Economics.
5.
ByattI.S., (2006). “The Stern Review: A dual critique, Part II: Economic aspects,”World Economics7: 199–229.
6.
CarterR.M., (2006). “The Stern Review: A dual critique, Part I: The Science,”World Economics7: 167–198.
7.
DasguptaP. (2006). “Comments on the Stern Review's Economics of Climate Change,” presentation at the Foundation for Science and Technology at the Royal Society, London.
8.
DEFRA [U.K. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] (2004). Scientific and Technical Aspects of Climate Change, including Impacts and Adaptation and Associated Costs, September 2004. Available at <www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/pdf/cc-science-0904.pdf>. Visited February 14, 2005.
GoklanyI.M. (1995). “Strategies to enhance adaptability: Technological change, economic growth and free trade,”Climatic Change30: 427–449.
11.
GoklanyI.M. (1998). “Saving habitat and conserving biodiversity on a crowded planet,”BioScience48: 941–953.
12.
GoklanyI.M. (2000). “Potential consequences of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration compared to other environmental problems,”Technology7S: 189–213.
13.
GoklanyI.M. (2002a) “Affluence, technology and well-being,”Case Western Reserve Law Review53: 369–390.
14.
GoklanyI.M. (2003). “Relative contributions of global warming to various climate sensitive risks, and their implications for adaptation and mitigation,”Energy & Environment14: 797–822.
15.
GoklanyI.M. (2005). “A climate policy for the short and medium term: Stabilization or adaptation?”Energy & Environment16: 667–680.
16.
GoklanyI.M. (2007a). “Integrated strategies to reduce vulnerability and advance adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development,”Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, DOI 10.1007/s11027-007-9098-1.
17.
GoklanyI.M. (2007b). The Improving State of the World: Why We're Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a Cleaner PlanetWashington: Cato Institute.
18.
GreenR.E.CornellS.J.ScharlemannJ.P.W., and BalmfordA. (2005). “Farming and the fate of wild nature,”Science307: 550–555.
19.
CastlesI., and HendersonD. (2003), “The IPCC emissions scenarios: An economic-statistical critique,”Energy & Environment, 14 (2 & 3): 173.
20.
HayhoeK.CayanD.FieldC.B., (2004). “Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101 (34): 12422–12427.
21.
HitzS.SmithJ. (2004). “Estimating global impacts from climate change,”Global Environmental Change14 (3): 201–218.
22.
IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] (2000). Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] (2001a). Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24.
IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] (2001b). Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Vulnerability, and Adaptation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] (2001c). Scoping Paper For The Proposed Special Report: Climate Change And Sustainable Development (Submitted By the Chairman), IPCC-XVIII Doc. 4 (e) on climate change (14.VIII.2001).
26.
IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] (2007). Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Summary For Policymakers. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf.
LevyP.E., (2004). “Modelling the impact of future changes in climate, CO2 concentration and land use on natural ecosystems and the terrestrial carbon sink,”Global Environmental Change14 (1): 21–30.
NichollsR.J. (2004). “Coastal flooding and wetland loss in the 21st century: Changes under the SRES climate and socio-economic scenarios,”Global Environmental Change14 (1): 69–86.
ParryM.L.RosenzweigCIglesiasILivermoreM. and FischerG. (2004). “Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios,”Global Environmental Change14 (1): 53–67.
33.
ParryM.L. (ed.). (2004). Global Environmental Change: Special Issue: An Assessment of the Global Effects of Climate Change under SRES Emissions and Socio-economic Scenarios, 14 (1): 1–99.
34.
Sala-I-MartinX. (2007). “Global Inequality Fades as the Global Economy Grows,” in: The 2007 Index of Economic Freedom, Washington, DC, Heritage Foundation, pp. 15–25.
SmitB.PilifosovaO.BurtonI.ChallengerB.HuqS.KleinR.J.T.YoheG.AdgerN.DowningT., and HarveyE. (2001). “Adaptation to Climate Change in the Context of Sustainable Development and Equity,” in McCarthyJ.J., (eds.), Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 877–912.
37.
Stern Review (2006). The Economics of Climate Change.
38.
TolR.S.J., and YoheG. (2006). “A Review of the Stern Review,”World Economics7 (4), October-December.
US Bureau of Commerce [USBC] (1975). Historical Statistics of the United States: From Colonial Times to 1970. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office.
41.
Van LieshoutM.KovatsR.S.LivermoreM.T.J., and MartenP. (2004). “Climate change and malaria: Analysis of the SRES climate and socio-economic scenarios,”Global Environmental Change14 (1): 87–99.
42.
WarrenR.HopeC.MastrandreaM.TolR.AdgerN., and LorenzoniI. (2006a). Spotlighting Impacts Functions in Integrated Assessment, Research Report Prepared for the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Working Paper 91, September 2006
43.
WarrenR.ArnellN.NichollsR.LevyP., and PriceJ. (2006b): ‘Understanding the regional impacts of climate change’, Research report prepared for the Stern Review, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 90, Norwich: Tyndall Centre, available from http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/twp90.pdf.
44.
World Bank: Various years. World Development Indicators CD-ROM, Washington, DC.
45.
World Resources Institute (2000). World Resources 2000–2001 CD-ROM, Washington, DC.
46.
YoheG. (2001). “Mitigative capacity: The mirror image of adaptive capacity on the emissions side,”Climatic Change49: 247–262.
