Table 8
GDP per Capita (in 1990 Dollars) for Developing and Industrialized Countries in 2100
1990
2100
Actual
A1FI
A2
B2
B1
Temperature increase
in 2085 [°C]
--
4.0
3.3
2.4
2.1
Developing Countries
GDP per capita,
no climate change
$875
$66,500
$11,000
$18,000
$40,200
Maximum cost of
climate change*
0
$23,408
$2,635
$2,281
$3,900
Net consumption per capita,
with climate change
$875
$43,092
$8,365
$15,719
$36,300
Industrialized Countries
GDP per capita,
no climate change
$14,500
$107,300
$46,200
$54,400
$72,800
Maximum cost of
climate change*
0
$37,770
$11,069
$6,894
$7,063
Net consumption per capita,
with climate change
$14,500
$69,530
$35,131
$47,506
$65,737
* Assuming (a) climate change will reduce welfare by 35.2% for A1FI in 2100 (see text), (b) welfare losses vary with
the square of the average global temperature change, and (c) the cost of climate change in 1990 is zero.
Sources: R. Warren et al. "Understanding the Regional Impacts of Climate Change," Tyndall Centre Working Paper no.
90, 2006, prepared for the Stern Review, http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/twp90.pdf; N. W. Arnell,
"Climate Change and Global Water Resources: SRES Emissions and Socio-Economic Scenarios," Global Environmental
Change 14, no.1 (2004): pp. 3152, World Bank, World Development Indicators (2006), and Stern Review on The
Economics of Climate Change, 2006.
If protecting
future well-being
change due to the inertia of the climate sys-
future generations will be better off in the rich-
tem. However, over time, mitigation will have
est but warmest world (A1FI) world. This sug-
is the objective of
a greater impact.
gests that, if protecting future well-being is the
public policy,
In Table 9, I show the impact of two miti-
objective of public policy, governmental inter-
governmental
gation scenarios on human mortality and
vention to address climate change ought to be
habitat loss for three of the key scenarios
aimed at maximizing wealth creation, not
intervention to
examined thus far.64 The two mitigation sce-
minimizing CO2 emissions.
address climate
narios represent the two poles at either end of
change ought to
the spectrum in terms of stringency, namely,
Costs and Benefits of
the Kyoto Protocol at the low end of effec-
be aimed at
Mitigation and Adaptation
tiveness and cost and, at the high end, a sce-
maximizing
nario that would ensure no climate change
beyond 1990 levels. These decreases, derived
In the near term, mitigation (that is, mea-
wealth creation,
from Tables 3, 6, and 7, are shown relative to
sures to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse
not minimizing
the unmitigated case, that is, no emission
gas concentrations) will have little or no
CO2 emissions.
controls whatsoever.
impact on reducing the impacts of climate
15