Sea Level Rise Might Cost the World $14 Trillion a Year by 2100

We need to take prompt action to keep global temperatures below the warming limit set by the United Nations. If we don’t, a new study claims that by 2100 the world could pay $14 trillion every year mitigating flooding impacts.

In 2010, the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change determined that it will be necessary to keep global average warming to below 2°C, or 3.6°F, above pre-industrial levels. And the consequences of failing to meet these goals are likely to be significant.

When global temperatures increase, sea levels rise too. That’s due to the melting of glaciers and ice sheets, as well as thermal ocean water expansion. More than 600 million people live in low-elevation coastal areas, defined as being less than 10 meters above sea level.

Photo credit: Thinkstock

Photo credit: Thinkstock

“These extreme sea levels will have a negative effect on the economies of developing coastal nations, and the habitability of low-lying coastlines,” Dr. Svetlana Jevrejeva of the UK National Oceanographic Centre, explained in a statement.

“Small, low-lying island nations such as the Maldives will be very easily affected, and the pressures on their natural resources and environmental will become even greater,” she added.

It’s not just poorer, low-lying countries that will feel the effect. More developed nations like China, with its long coastline, large coastal population and rapidly growing GDP, will foot a tremendous amount of this cost. Not unexpectedly, researchers say, large cities will be better protected because of their more substantial infrastructure and assets.

None of this has to happen, of course. If the world adheres to the Paris Climate Agreement, we could save ourselves $20 trillion and be less likely to break the 2°C warming limit. Meeting a target that’s even stricter than the 2°C limit would save us even more.

And, yes, we’re talking about that Paris Agreement President Trump walked away from in 2017, despite the participation of 194 other countries around the world.

Photo credit: Thinkstock

Photo credit: Thinkstock

“Based on the published estimates, our evidence would suggest that the benefits of meeting the more stringent targets vastly outweigh the costs,” Stanford University researcher Marshall Burke told the Los Angeles Times.

Many feel that the UN 2°C goal isn’t going to be enough to keep us safe from severe climate impacts like flooding. As long ago as 2005, climate scientist James Hansen said that the 2°C threshold “cannot be considered a responsible target.” He wants to see a unified effort to reach 1°C instead.

In fact, researchers say that that 71 percent of countries — that’s 90 percent of the world’s population — would be much better off economically if global temperature increase can be held to 1.5°C.

Instead, though, here we are, worrying about that $14 trillion the world will have to find — every year — to offset the damage and property loss attributable to climate change. That doesn’t even include the negative ecosystem effects, the species loss and all the other ways climate change will slowly eat away at the world we know.

Despite these concerns, the United States voluntarily walked away from the Paris Climate Agreement. We’re not participating. Instead, we’re focusing on propping up the fossil fuel industry rather than encouraging the growth of renewable energy.

What is wrong with this picture?

Photo Credit: Thinkstock

43 comments

Chad A
Chad Anderson18 days ago

Thank you.

SEND
Ann B
Ann B1 months ago

most of us will be dead the way things are going i hate to see what the group that will be the leaders and citizens well be left to see for sure no animals left except roaches and mosquitoes

SEND
Cindy S
Cindy Smith2 months ago

drown trump in the sea

SEND
David C
David C2 months ago

that's okay, tRumpenstein will just build another wall

SEND
Dot A
Dot A2 months ago

- by go under, it is intended to mean, financially, which hurts a person's well being in most every practical sense of the word.

SEND
Dot A
Dot A2 months ago

Error prone or not, there will be a large percentage of real estate underwater, and the humans involved will go under, as well.

SEND
Leanne K
Leanne K2 months ago

Shelley W I agree, we must seriously cut our numbers ( and Im not at all religious so free contraception and terminations and a much bigger push for men to be responsible. Yeah right, well back to contraceptives and abortions... ) and yes, China and India have extreme numbers but for way too long us western nations and our air quality regulations saw us deliberately use China and India to deal with our waste. Oh we knew, we could have started living greener but we preferred the pretense. Its biting us on the a$$ now

SEND
Leanne K
Leanne K2 months ago

Not Rhode islanders if they win their lawsuit

SEND
Dan Blossfeld
Dan Blossfeld2 months ago

Robert F.,
You do realize that droughts have been on the decrease in the U.S. over the past century? Predictions are for wetting, not drier conditions, such that flood mitigation is likely to become the bigger issue.

SEND
Dan Blossfeld
Dan Blossfeld2 months ago

The study's estimates are based on a 3-ft sea level rise. Considering that sea level has been rising at a fairly constant 3mm/yr for the past half century or so, this represents a three-fold increase over recent observations. The study also states that the added costs would be incurred if no additional adaptions for sea level rise are implemented. Who would not make adaptations, if the sea level was rising for 80 years? Overall, this report is error-prone and utterly meaningless.

SEND