Reacción a "Historical carbon emissions will generate greater economic costs in the future than they have already caused to date"

Is the study of good quality?

“Yes, that’s why Nature has chosen to publish it. The author is a recognised expert in the field. In any case, it’s worth bearing in mind that Nature is a multidisciplinary journal; this work is very much rooted in economics, and Nature is not a specialist economics journal.”

Does it have any limitations that should be considered?

“It is a study based on estimating costs and damages. As such, the figures should be interpreted as estimates, not as definitive values.”

What are its implications, and how does it fit with existing evidence?

“The study follows a growing line of research on the socio-economic impacts of climate change. It aligns well with the evidence pointing to severe effects of climate change. In that sense, it doesn’t reveal anything fundamentally new; rather, it quantifies estimates of loss and damage.”

How could these findings be integrated into existing international agreements?

“These estimates help us understand the costs and losses we face and support cost–benefit analyses of adaptation and mitigation initiatives. One common criticism of such initiatives is that they are expensive. This kind of evidence shows that the cost of inaction may be even greater. That reinforces the importance of international, national, and local agreements and initiatives, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals.”

Could they be used to claim compensation between countries?

“Yes, but that would take us into the realm of politics and international negotiations, which are always complex.”