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.”

This is a high-quality study addressing a crucial issue, the present and future economic impact of climate change, which has not received attention commensurate with its importance and socio-economic implications within the social sciences. The study examines the effects of ‘historical’ emissions (with 1990 as the baseline year for international climate agreements) on both current and future economic outcomes (looking ahead to 2100), and finds these impacts to be greater than previously estimated.

The major problem with the current process of climate change is that it is progressing faster than early 21st-century models and projections anticipated. Rather than declining, greenhouse gas emissions have increased and continue to do so. They are expected to keep rising for at least the next decade. As a result, the economic impact is likely to exceed the estimates provided by recent studies. Any assessment of climate change’s economic effects, particularly with a view to incorporating them into future international agreements, will need to account both for the damage caused by extreme weather events in specific regions or countries and for the cumulative effects of emissions, using approaches such as the one proposed in this study.

It is essential that Article 9 of the Paris Agreement be implemented urgently and that the planned $300 billion in climate finance be mobilised, transferring resources from wealthier nations to less developed ones. This should require all countries, especially the richest, to allocate a fixed share of their GDP annually (at least 1 %) to tackling climate change (both mitigation and adaptation) and to funding the Paris Agreement (Article 9), if the socio-economic impacts expected in the near future, both domestically and globally, are to be reduced.

In summary, this study represents an important contribution to assessing the economic impact of greenhouse gas emissions, which are directly responsible for the current process of climate change driven by a human-induced imbalance in the Earth’s energy budget. This imbalance is leading to sustained atmospheric warming and increased energy in impactful weather events. As the process is advancing more rapidly than previously estimated, urgent economic and policy decisions are required, both to compensate the most affected countries and to prepare global economies for the emerging climate reality.