<<  <  >  >>

Table 7

Deaths in 2085 Resulting from Hunger, Malaria, and Coastal Flooding (thousands)

1990

A1FI

A2

B2

B1

Baseline

2085

2085

2085

2085

Mortality in absence of climate change

Hunger

3,240

407

2,976

904

349

Coastal flooding

8

2

59

28

4

Malaria

1,120

1,657

2,977

2,143

1,657

(Subtotal )

4,368

2,067

6,012

3,075

2,010

Change in mortality due to climate change

Hunger

0

109

-35

19

39

Coastal flooding

0

42

222

53

27

Malaria

0

95

96

44

26

(Subtotal )

0

237

282

116

92

Total mortality

4,368

2,304

6,295

3,191

2,102

Sources: Tables 2, 4, and 5.

Are Richer and Warmer

Well-being in

the Stern Review's gross inflation of the

Worlds Worse Off Than

adverse impacts of climate change, welfare

2100 should, in

should be higher in 2100 than it was in 1990.

Poorer but Cooler Worlds?

the aggregate,

Remarkably, even after accounting for cli-

mate change, welfare in developing countries

Climate change will leave future genera-

be highest for the

(on average) should be higher in 2100 than it

tions poorer than they otherwise would have

richest-but-

was for developed countries in 1990 for all

been absent climate change. But would net

warmest scenario

but the A2 scenario.

welfare necessarily be reduced below today's

This calls into question arguments that

levels? To answer this question, I rely on the

and lowest for the

present generations are morally bound to take

data produced by the Stern Review, which

poorest scenario.

aggressive actions now to mitigate climate

estimated that unmitigated climate change

change because future generations' well-being

will reduce welfare by an amount equivalent

will otherwise be worse. Future generations

to a reduction in consumption per capita of

will not only be better off, they should also

5­20 percent "now and forever" if one

have at their disposal better and more effective

accounts for market and nonmarket impacts

and the risk of catastrophe.62 It also suggests

technologies to address not just climate

change but any other sources of adversity.

that by the year 2200, the 95th percentile of

Most striking, however, is the fact that

the equivalent per capita GDP losses could

rise to 35.2 percent.63

well-being in 2100 should, in the aggregate,

be highest for the richest-but-warmest (A1FI)

Table 8 uses the Stern Review to estimate

scenario and lowest for the poorest (A2) sce-

net welfare per capita under each of the four

nario. This conclusion was reached despite

scenarios. It provides estimates of welfare

the previously noted tendency of impact

losses assuming unmitigated climate change

analyses to overestimate net adverse impacts,

and adjusts the GDP per capita in 2100

especially for wealthier societies.

downward to account for those losses assum-

If future well-being is measured by per capi-

ing that they would increase with the square

ta income adjusted for welfare losses due to

of the average global temperature increase

climate change, the surprising conclusion

from 1990 to 2085 indicated in Table 1.

using the Stern Review's own estimates is that

Table 8 indicates that, notwithstanding

14