Search for: All records

Abstract Ecosystems generate a wide range of benefits for humans, including some market goods as well as other benefits that are not directly reflected in market activity¹. Climate change will alter the distribution of ecosystems around the world and change the flow of these benefits^2,3. However, the specific implications of ecosystem changes for human welfare remain unclear, as they depend on the nature of these changes, the value of the affected benefits and the extent to which communities rely on natural systems for their well-being⁴. Here we estimate country-level changes in economic production and the value of non-market ecosystem benefits resulting from climate-change-induced shifts in terrestrial vegetation cover, as projected by dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) driven by general circulation climate models. Our results show that the annual population-weighted mean global flow of non-market ecosystem benefits valued in the wealth accounts of the World Bank will be reduced by 9.2% in 2100 under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway SSP2-6.0 with respect to the baseline no climate change scenario and that the global population-weighted average change in gross domestic product (GDP) by 2100 is −1.3% of the baseline GDP. Because lower-income countries are more reliant on natural capital, these GDP effects are regressive. Approximately 90% of these damages are borne by the poorest 50% of countries and regions, whereas the wealthiest 10% experience only 2% of these losses. 

Climate change poses a growing threat to biodiversity, but the welfare consequences of these changes are not well understood. Here we analyze data on the US Endangered Species Act and project increases in species listing and spending due to climate change. We show that higher endangerment is strongly associated with the probability of listing but also find a large bias toward vertebrate species for both listing and spending. Unmitigated warming would cause the listing of an additional 690 species and committed spending of $21 billion by 2100. Several thousand more species would be critically imperiled by climate change but remain unlisted. Finally, we compare ESA spending with estimates of willingness to pay for conservation of 36 listed species. Aggregate WTP is larger than ESA spending for the vast majority of species even using conservative assumptions and typically one to two orders of magnitude larger than direct ESA spending using less restrictive assumptions.