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. 

Abstract Combining new constraints on future socio‐economic trajectories and the climate system's response to emissions can substantially reduce the projection uncertainty currently clouding regional climate adaptation decisions—more than either constraint individually. 

Abstract A rich body of evidence from local-scale experiments and observational studies has revealed stabilizing effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning. However, whether these effects emerge across entire regions and continents remains largely overlooked. Here we combine data on the distribution of more than 57,500 plant species and remote-sensing observations throughout the entire Western Hemisphere to investigate the role of multiple facets of plant diversity (species richness, phylogenetic diversity, and functional diversity) in mediating the sensitivity of ecosystems to climate variability at the regional-scale over the past 20 years. We show that, across multiple biomes, regions of greater plant diversity exhibit lower sensitivity (more stable over time) to temperature variability at the interannual and seasonal-scales. While these areas can display lower sensitivity to interannual variability in precipitation, they emerge as highly sensitive to precipitation seasonality. Conserving landscapes of greater diversity may help stabilize ecosystem functioning under climate change, possibly securing the continuous provisions of productivity-related ecosystem service to people. 

Abstract Sensitivity of ecosystem productivity to climate variability is a critical component of ecosystem resilience to climate change. Variation in ecosystem sensitivity is influenced by many variables. Here we investigate the effect of bedrock lithology and weathering products on the sensitivity of ecosystem productivity to variation in climate water deficit using Bayesian statistical models. Two thirds of terrestrial ecosystems exhibit negative sensitivity, where productivity decreases with increased climate water deficit, while the other third exhibit positive sensitivity. Variation in ecosystem sensitivity is significantly affected by regolith porosity and permeability and regolith and soil thickness, indicating that lithology, through its control on water holding capacity, exerts important controls on ecosystem sensitivity. After accounting for effects of these four variables, significant differences in sensitivity remain among ecosystems on different rock types, indicating the complexity of bedrock effects. Our analysis suggests that regolith affects ecosystem sensitivity to climate change worldwide and thus their resilience. 

The effects of climate change on natural systems will be substantial, widespread, and likely irreversible. Warmer temperatures and changing precipitation patterns have already contributed to forest dieback and pushed some species toward extinction. Natural systems contribute to human welfare both as an input to the production of consumption goods and through the provision of nonuse values (i.e., existence and bequest values). But because they are often unpriced, it can be difficult to constrain these benefits. Understanding how climate change effects on the natural capital stock affect human well-being, and therefore the social cost of carbon (SCC), requires understanding not just the biophysical effects of climate change but also the particular role they play in supporting human welfare. This article reviews a range of topics from natural capital accounting through climate change economics important for quantifying the ecological costs of climate change and integrating these costs into SCC calculations. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Resource Economics, Volume 14 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates. 

It is well established that temperature variability affects a range of outcomes relevant to human welfare, including health, emotion and mood, and productivity across a number of economic sectors. However, a critical and still unresolved empirical question is whether temperature variation has a long-lasting effect on economic productivity and, therefore, whether damages compound over time in response to long-lived changes in temperature expected with climate change. Several studies have identified a relationship between temperature and gross domestic product (GDP), but empirical evidence as to the persistence of these effects is still weak. This paper presents a novel approach to isolate the persistent component of temperature effects on output using lower frequency temperature variation. The effects are heterogeneous across countries but collectively, using three different GDP datasets, we find evidence of persistent effects, implying temperature affects the determinants of economic growth, not just economic productivity. This, in turn, means that the aggregate effects of climate change on GDP may be far larger and far more uncertain than currently represented in integrated assessment models used to calculate the social cost of carbon. 

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.