Climate Change Could Cut World Economy by $23 Trillion in 2050, Insurance Giant Warns

[SunSeeker]

The effects of climate change can be expected to shave 11 percent to 14 percent off global economic output by 2050 compared with growth levels without climate change, according to a report from Swiss Re, one of the world’s largest providers of insurance to other insurance companies. That amounts to as much as $23 trillion in reduced annual global economic output worldwide as a result of climate change.

Some Asian nations could have one-third less wealth than would otherwise be the case, the company said. “Our analysis shows the potential costs that economies could face should governments fail to act more decisively on climate,” said Patrick Saner, who is in charge of global macroeconomic forecasts for Swiss Re.
...
If countries succeed at holding average global temperature increases to less than two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels — the goal set by the 2015 Paris accord, an agreement among nations to fight climate change — economic losses by midcentury would be marginal, according to Swiss Re. The company found that most countries’ economies would be no more than 5 percent smaller than would otherwise be the case.

But current emission levels are far from those targets. Global temperatures are likely to increase as much 2.6 degrees by 2050 based on current trajectories, Swiss Re reported.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/22/climate/climate-change-economy.html

[ffr]

1. I always look at the real danger as being lack of fresh drinking water

Without it, you can kiss growing human populations good-bye.

It's not glamorous, but the Insurance Industry forecasts their losses so they better know what rates to charge. Good luck with that Miami condo on the bay!

[SunSeeker]

7. Yes, and the human population is definitely growing.

[ProfessorGAC]

2. And, There Is The Lever!!!

I've been hoping for quite some time that private enterprise would put forth a quantified analysis of the COST of not confronting this issue.
$23 trillion, even if debatable, will get attention, especially if that cost is proportional to a country's fraction of global GDP. And that figure can't possibly be debated as greater than 10-15% overstated.
Plus, it's important this is out forty by a large corporation. Not a university study, not from an environmental activist group, not a think tank, nor government agency.
People whose job it is to assess financial risk & profit potential are putting out this warning.
An insurance company putting a price tag on it.
Very important.

[SunSeeker]

3. Insurance companies are concerned because know climate change will cost them massive CA$H.

As noted in the article:

For hazards where confidence of a direct link with global warming is medium/high, such as heat waves, wildfires, droughts and torrential rainfall, we are adjusting our pricing model,” Jerome Jean Haegeli, Swiss Re’s chief economist, said in a statement.

The projections could also influence investments by Swiss Re and other insurance companies, which collectively manage about $30 trillion in assets, according to Mr. Haegeli

[ProfessorGAC]

4. Agreed!

I was just stating the importance of this coming from someone with a profit motive.
Much harder for the Randian crackpots to dismiss as an "ivory tower" guess, when it's a giant corporation sounding the alarm.
Their motivation to do these projections is based on dollars & cents. Everyone understands something about $ & ¢.

[SunSeeker]

5. Yup, human misery means nothing to corporations, but money does! nt

[panader0]

6. My daughter works for the Federal Reserve Bank and they have a climate commission

to study the effects of climate change on world economies. She was chosen to represent her
branch of the FRB. There are huge amounts of money involved.