The goal of the Paris Agreement is the same as that of the majority of Americans. The Paris Agreement is the first international climate agreement to include commitments from developed and developing countries in the fight against climate change. That`s why the Chicago Council on Global Affairs noted that 71 percent of Americans surveyed (57 percent of Republicans and 87 percent of Democrats) said the U.S. should continue to participate in the Paris Agreement. WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. — President Biden has again committed the United States to the Paris Climate Agreement and has also pushed for a climate plan that calls for carbon-free electricity by 2035 and net-zero emissions by 2050 — a policy that is consistent and goes beyond the 2°C mitigation efforts called for in the original Paris Agreement. In the following, we subject our results to extensive robustness tests. First, we complete the climate sensitivity analysis of the main text by considering an integer probability density function for ECS values. Second, we look at the impact of uncertainty in BHM`s estimates.

In this regard, we take into account alternative estimates of β1 and β2 on the one hand and different model specifications on the other. This analysis is followed by a comparison with WCO estimates. Third, we examine the impact of uncertainty on the socio-economic future by recalibrating the DICE model according to a select group of SSPs. As a by-product of this calibration, we receive mitigation cost functions that emulate the costs of a detailed process model and thus represent further development of the DICE model. Deriving these functions allows us to test the sensitivity of our results to these alternative emission reduction costs. We complete this section by giving more information about the robustness test in relation to the preference parameters indicated in the main text. Hallegatte, S. An adaptive regional input-output model and its application to katrina`s economic cost assessment.

Risk. Anal. 28, 779–799 (2008). Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement directly contradicts America`s economic interests. For this reason, more than 1100 companies with a turnover of more than US$3 trillion supported the deal. Whether it is its energy efficiency and energy efficiency standards that actively save consumers and businesses money; the increasing use of renewable energy, which creates jobs, reduces costs and creates businesses; or investments in soil health and improved forest management provide economic benefits to climate action. And tackling the climate crisis will reduce the risks of climate impacts that cost communities and businesses billions, costs we already see every year. Other tests also show robustness compared to other socioeconomic assumptions as described in Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP)25 (Fig. 6). Since the mitigation cost function in DICE is greatly simplified, we study how our results change with functions that describe different technological possibilities in the future (Fig. 7). Like the differences in results for a number of damage functions, the uncertainty of mitigation costs reflects the derived optimal warming level.

Nevertheless, the mitigation costs resulting from the different SSPs tend to imply a rather lower average average optimal warming level (1.8 °C, 1.9 °C, 2.0 °C). We find that the 2°C target represents the optimal cost-benefit temperature for basic calibration (Fig. 2a). This calibration includes the best estimate8 of the temperature-economic growth ratio in the past and the original ECS value in DICE-2013 of 2.9°C, which has been at the centre of estimates for several decades26,27. Higher ECS values shift the target warming, where the attenuation cost curve diverges infinitely, to higher values (Fig. 1), i.e. much higher reduction costs are incurred. For an ECS of 4°C, for example, the 2°C target becomes too expensive. However, with optimal heating of the target of 2.4°C, the deviation from this target is not significant. For smaller ECS values, by .B. of 2 °C, limiting heating to well below 2 °C is economically optimal. Regardless of the exact SEC, optimal mitigation efforts promise a significant reduction in damage compared to the bau scenario (~14% for the 4°C ECS, ~10% for the 2.9°C ECS and ~8% for the 2°C ESA).

These efforts are ambitious, as claimed by the Paris Agreement (Article 3, paragraph 1) and involve very strict measures from the outset (Fig. 2c). This comparison provides warming at the end of the century, which is associated with the lowest total cost of damage and mitigation as used in the IAM used (Fig. 1). Cost-benefit-optimal heating is therefore determined by the shape of the two cost curves. Mitigation cost curves are characterized by two universal properties. First, they diverge from today`s warming, especially when negative-emission technologies are not available. Second, the costs of mitigating a warming scenario without mitigation efforts fall to zero. The combined ratio, on the other hand, is known to be zero without warming and increases with rising temperatures. The extent to which damage increases without mitigation is investigated.

However, due to the divergence in attenuation costs, the economically optimal temperature becomes less sensitive to the exact level of damage once it has reached a certain level (Fig. 1). Here we examine whether the damage resulting from extrapolating the observed ratio of economic growth to temperature6.8 is above this level. Burke, M., Hsiang, S.M. & Miguel, E. Global nonlinear influence of temperature on economic output. . . .