Talk:Economic impacts of climate change

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 May 2020 and 3 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yuxin L-.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggested item for Further Reading

Suggesting the addition under Further Reading of the following 2019 overview article on economic impacts of climate change. It covers economic research on effects of rising temperatures on economic growth and financial stability and the actions being taken by central banks internationally. (I am an editor with the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, which published the article.)

• “Central Banks and Climate Risks: Some researchers look at climate change and see economic uncertainty. Central banks are beginning to take notice”, Econ Focus, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Second/Third Quarter 2019.

EditorMax of RichmondFR (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@EditorMax of RichmondFR: Sounds cool! I added it to the Wikipedia article. Solid writing!! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead section is too redundant

The lead section was recently rewritten, but it's very redundant: every paragraph starts with exactly the same phrase in bold text. Could it be paraphrased in a less redundant way? Jarble (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I took out the bolding now but I agree with you that it's not written in an elegant way and needs further work. EMsmile (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I've done some work on the lead, mainly by copying content from effects of climate change. At the moment, the same content and references are now in two places (here and there); probably not ideal. I would prefer the use of an excerpt. EMsmile (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S. More work is required for the lead so that it becomes a good summary of the article. EMsmile (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

No connection to economic/ ecological warfare?

It seems relevant that as we see countries at war using their Economics that topics relating to money and climate would touch on military or population planning applications TlalocAxe (talk) 05:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal : merging the "impacts" article into the "analysis" article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

---

There is a lot of overlap between this article on impacts and the one on economic analysis of climate change .

The "analysis" one is broader because it discusses mitigation policies and adaptation options and their costs and benefits, so it discusses different methods other than CBA. However I don't see very much difference in the framing because economic methods are needed to understand all of these economic impacts. The methods change depending whether you look at impacts alone (mainly these can be monetised) or at impacts with different mitigation policies (where costs are monetised but the benefits will be counted in emissions reductions, and are mainly using CEA) or adaptation (other appraisal methods are more likely to be used than CBA or CEA, having more to do with risk).

Also the "impacts" article - this article - is very outdated. The impacts lead is fairly good, but the main text is too outdated. There are many recent modelling studies reported in AR6 (CCB on Economics) - with economic impacts varying so widely they do not give any range for loss in global GDP. The lead currently mentions the swiss Re one at 11-14% but it might be good to also mention that there is low agreement between studies. It seems to depend highly on the method being used. The various methods reported in AR6 (structural, statistical, meta-analysis - the now state-of-the-art) are not currently mentioned in the article.

I'd like to propose to merge the "impacts" article into the "analysis" article. The lead text of "impacts" could be expanded and used in the section 'Economic impacts of climate change' and other essential sections integrated. The page size of "impacts" is 20kB and "analysis" is 27 kB (so they are both fairly short). It would be easier to update them together. Does anybody have any other thoughts ? Richarit (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Support. It's a bit similar to the situation at carbon offsets and credits: even though they are different concepts we decided in the end to merge them into one article so that it's easier to work on it. What's your proposal for the title of the merged article? Should it remain as "economic analysis of climate change"? EMsmile (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Great, thanks, User:Chidgk1, thanks for carrying out the basic merger already. Now for the fine tuning... EMsmile (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

For any further discussions, please use this talk page now: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Economic_analysis_of_climate_change#Moving_forward_after_recent_merger EMsmile (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)