{"id":10770,"date":"2025-02-13T13:37:26","date_gmt":"2025-02-13T10:37:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cfwt.sua.ac.tz\/ecosystems\/?p=10770"},"modified":"2025-02-13T13:37:26","modified_gmt":"2025-02-13T10:37:26","slug":"how-unilateral-decarbonisation-pays-for-itself","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cfwt.sua.ac.tz\/ecosystems\/news\/how-unilateral-decarbonisation-pays-for-itself","title":{"rendered":"How Unilateral decarbonisation pays for itself"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are rapidly warming our planet, with potentially severe economic, social, and health consequences. Conventional estimates of climate damages suggest that while coordinated global efforts are desirable, unilateral action is rarely cost-effective due to a classic free-rider problem. Why should a country bear the costs of reducing emissions when the benefits are shared globally? This column re-evaluates this view in light of new climate damage estimates based on global<\/a> temperature variation, showing that the economic case for unilateral decarbonisation is far stronger than previously thought.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<\/header>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

Climate change<\/a> poses a pressing challenge for policymakers worldwide. While most economists agree that coordinated global action is needed to address climate change<\/a>, achieving such coordination has proven particularly difficult. Global emissions<\/a> continue to rise despite developments in international negotiations since the 2015 Paris Agreement.<\/p>\n

The perceived free-rider problem is a key barrier to coordinated climate action<\/a>: countries that reduce emissions bear the full costs, while the benefits are shared globally. This \u2018tragedy of the commons\u2019 creates a strong disincentive for unilateral action. Under conventional estimates of climate damages, coordinated global efforts<\/a> are desirable while unilateral action is rarely cost-effective (e.g. Barrage and Nordhaus 2024). This concern has shaped policy debates for decades, limiting ambitious climate action<\/a> in many large economies.<\/p>\n

New research challenges this presumption. In Bilal and K\u00e4nzig (2025), we find that when accounting for the broader economic impacts of global temperature changes<\/a>, unilateral decarbonisation can actually pay for itself for large economies like the US or the EU.<\/p>\n

Global versus local temperature effects
\n<\/strong>Most previous studies have focused on how local temperature changes affect economic output. These analyses typically find relatively modest impacts in the medium run, particularly for advanced economies in temperate regions<\/a> (Dell et al. 2012, Burke et al. 2015).<\/p>\n

Our research takes a different approach: we examine directly how global temperature changes impact national economies<\/a>, building on Bilal and K\u00e4nzig (2024). Using natural variability in global<\/a> mean temperature, we find substantially larger effects than those identified through local temperature changes alone.<\/p>\n

Figure 1 displays the effects of a global temperature shock of 1\u00b0C. We can see that such warming reduces output per capita by more than 10% at peak in both the US and the EU. These effects are an order of magnitude larger than those estimated using local temperature variation alone.<\/p>\n

Figure 1<\/strong>\u00a0The effect of global temperature shocks on GDP per capita<\/p>\n

\n