Abstract

Hurricane Harvey is one of the costliest tropical cyclones in history. In this paper, we use a probabilistic event attribution framework to estimate the costs associated with Hurricane Harvey that are attributable to anthropogenic influence on the climate system. Results indicate that the “fraction of attributable risk” for the rainfall from Harvey was likely about at least a third with a preferable/best estimate of three quarters. With an average estimate of damages from Harvey assessed at about US$90bn, applying this fraction gives a best estimate of US$67bn, with a likely lower bound of at least US$30bn, of these damages that are attributable to the human influence on climate. This “bottom-up” event-based estimate of climate change damages contrasts sharply with the more “top-down” approach using integrated assessment models (IAMs) or global macroeconometric estimates: one IAM estimates annual climate change damages in the USA to be in the region of US$21.3bn. While the two approaches are not easily comparable, it is noteworthy that our “bottom-up” results estimate that one single extreme weather event contributes more to climate change damages in the USA than an entire year by the “top-down” method. Given that the “top-down” approach, at best, parameterizes but does not resolve the effects of extreme weather events, our findings suggest that the “bottom-up” approach is a useful avenue to pursue in future attempts to refine estimates of climate change damages.

Highlights

  • The use of information from climate change attribution studies to quantify damages associated with climate change was proposed about 15 years ago (Allen, 2003), and recent work has suggested the approach can be valuable as one component within a wider systematic assessment of climate change costs (Millar et al, 2018, Frame et al, 2018)

  • We compare the damages implied by this “bottom-up” attribution-based approach with damages implied by a commonly used integrated assessment model, DICE, in a more “topdown” type of approach (Nordhaus, 1993, Nordhaus and Boyer, 1999)

  • Following a flood in 2003 at his Oxford home, Allen(Allen, 2003) proposed that the influence of anthropogenic climate change on individual extreme weather events could be quantified with the use of climate models

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The use of information from climate change attribution studies to quantify damages associated with climate change was proposed about 15 years ago (Allen, 2003), and recent work has suggested the approach can be valuable as one component within a wider systematic assessment of climate change costs (Millar et al, 2018, Frame et al, 2018). This approach can provide a valuable measurement tool for quantification that can be used in discussions regarding compensation and loss and damage. Our estimate should be seen as a new strand of evidence which, when combined with similar estimates of other economic losses (and gains) from climate change, could provide a useful line of evidence which could inform macroeconomic and IAM-centered approaches

Results
Probabilistic event attribution
Estimated economic costs
Comparisons to top-down estimates of the costs of climate change
Compliance with ethical standards
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call