1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report. 2014;
2. (HPA) HPA . The effects of flooding on mental health. 2011.
3. Hames D, Vardoulakis S. Climate change risk assessment for the health sector. 2012.
4. Kovats RS, Osborn D. UK climate change risk assessment evidence report: chapter 5, people and the built. Environment. 2016;
5. Morris, GP, Reis S, Beck S, Fleming LE, Adger WN, Benton TG, Depledge MH. Climate change and health in the UK: scoping and communicating the distal dimension. LWEC Technical Paper for Health Climate Change Impact Report Card. 2014. Available online at http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/partnerships/ride/lwec/report-cards/health-source10/.
6. Adger WN. Vulnerability. Global Environ Chang. 2006;16(3):268–281. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006.[Cross Ref]
7. Society F, Lives H. The Marmot Review. 2011.
8. Heart UK. Bridging the Gaps: Tackling Inequalities in cardiovascular disease. 2013.
9. Adger WN, Paavola J, Huq S. In: Fairness in adaptation to climate change. Mace MJ, editor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006.
10. Brisley R, Welstead J, Hindle R, Paavola J. Socially Just Adaptation to Climate Change. 2012.
11. Wilson SM, Richard R, Joseph L, Williams EM. Climate change, environmental justice, and vulnerability: an exploratory spatial analysis. Enviromental Justice. 2010;3(1):13–19. doi: 10.1089/env.2009.0035.[Cross Ref]
12. Hajat S, Vardoulakis S, Heaviside C, Eggen B. Climate change effects on human health: projections of temperature-related mortality for the UK during the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s. J Epidemiol Commun H. 2014;68(7):641–648. doi: 10.1136/jech-2013-202449.[PubMed][Cross Ref]
13. Arbuthnott K, Hajat S: Hotter summers and heat waves. Environ Health-GlobIn press. [PMC free article][PubMed]
14. Heaviside C, Vardoulakis S, Cai XM. Attribution of mortality to the urban heat island during heatwaves in the west midlands, UK. Environ Health-Glob. 2016;15 [PMC free article][PubMed]
15. Oikonomou E, Davies M, Mavrogianni A, Biddulph P, Wilkinson P, Kolokotroni M. Modelling the relative importance of the urban heat island and the thermal quality of dwellings for overheating in London. Build Environ. 2012;57:223–238. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.04.002.[Cross Ref]
16. Vardoulakis S, Dimitroulopoulou C, Thornes J, Lai KM, Taylor J, Myers I, Heaviside C, Mavrogianni A, Shrubsole C, Chalabi Z, et al. Impact of climate change on the domestic indoor environment and associated health risks in the UK. Environ Int. 2015;85:299–313. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.09.010.[PubMed][Cross Ref]
17. Gupta R, Walker G, Lewis A, Barnfield L, Gregg M, Neven L. Care provision fit for a future climate. In.: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 2016.
18. Hajat S: Health effects of milder winters. Environ Health-GlobIn press
19. Staddon PL, Montgomery HE, Depledge MH. Climate warming will not decrease winter mortality. Nat Clim Chang. 2014;4(3):190–194. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2121.[Cross Ref]
20. Scottish Government . Fuel poverty evidence review: defining, measuring and Analysing fuel poverty in Scotland. 2012.
21. Watts N, Adger WN, Agnolucci P, Blackstock A, Byass P, Cai WJ, Chaytor S, Colbourn T, Collins M, Cooper A, et al. Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health. Lancet. 2015;386(10006):1861–1914. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60854-6.[PubMed][Cross Ref]
22. Oven KJ, Curtis SE, Reaney S, Riva M, Stewart MG, Ohlemüller R, Dunn CE, Nodwell S, Dominelli L, Holden R. Climate change and health and social care: defining future hazard, vulnerability and risk for infrastructure systems supporting older people’s health care in England. Appl Geogr. 2012;33:16–24. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.05.012.[Cross Ref]
23. Doherty R, Heal M, O’Connor F: Climate change impacts on human health through its effects on air quality. Environ Health-Glob In press. [PMC free article][PubMed]
24. Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants . Quantification of Mortality and Hospital Admissiopns Associated with Ground-level Ozone. 2015.
25. Stedman JR. The predicted number of air pollution related deaths in the UK during the august 2003 heatwave. Atmos Environ. 2004;38(8):1087–1090. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2003.11.011.[Cross Ref]
26. Brainard JS, Jones AP, Bateman IJ, Lovett AA. Modelling environmental equity: access to air quality in Birmingham. England Environ Plann A. 2002;34(4):695–716. doi: 10.1068/a34184.[Cross Ref]
27. Mitchell G, Dorling D. An environmental justice analysis of British air quality. Environ Plann A. 2003;35:909–229. doi: 10.1068/a35240.[Cross Ref]
28. Heal MR, Heaviside C, Doherty RM, Vieno M, Stevenson DS, Vardoulakis S. Health burdens of surface ozone in the UK for a range of future scenarios. Environ Int. 2013;61:36–44. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2013.09.010.[PubMed][Cross Ref]
29. Osborne NJ, Eggen B: Pollen and human health: impacts of anthropogenic climate change. Environ Health-Glob In press.
30. Tsai CL, Lee WY, Hanania NA, Camargo CA. Age-related differences in clinical outcomes for acute asthma in the United States, 2006-2008. J Allergy Clin Immun. 2012;129(5):1252–U1363. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2012.01.061.[PubMed][Cross Ref]
31. Yanez A, Cho SH, Soriano JB, Rosenwasser LJ, Rodrigo GJ, Rabe KF, Peters S, Niimi A, Ledford DK, Katial R, et al. Asthma in the elderly: what we know and what we have yet to know. World Allergy Organ J. 2014;7(1):8. doi: 10.1186/1939-4551-7-8.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]
32. Lake I: Food borne disease and climate change. Environ Health-Glob In Press.
33. Nichols GL, Richardson JF, Sheppard SK, Lane C, Sarran C. Campylobacter epidemiology: a descriptive study reviewing 1 million cases in England and Wales between 1989 and 2011. BMJ Open. 2012;2(4) [PMC free article][PubMed]
34. Curtis S, Fair A, Wistow J, Val D, Oven K: Impact of extreme weather events and climate change for health and social care systems. Environ Health-Glob In Press.
35. Thornes JE, Fisher PA, Rayment-Bishop T, Smith C. Ambulance call-outs and response times in Birmingham and the impact of extreme weather and climate change. Emerg Med J. 2014;31(3):220–228. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2012-201817.[PubMed][Cross Ref]
36. Morens DM, Folkers GK, Fauci AS. The challenge of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases. Nature. 2004;430(6996):242–249. doi: 10.1038/nature02759.[PubMed][Cross Ref]
37. Baylis M: Potential impact of climate change on emerging infections in the UK. Environ Health-Glob In press. [PMC free article][PubMed]
38. Medlock JM, Leach SA. Effect of climate change on vector-borne disease risk in the UK. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015;15(6):721–730. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(15)70091-5.[PubMed][Cross Ref]
39. Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA): The UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2012: Evidence Report 2012.
40. Environment Agency . Flooding in England: A national assessment of flood risk. 2009.
41. Lindley S, O'Neill J, Kandeh J, Lawson N, Christian N, O’Neill M. Climate change, justice and vulnerability. 2011.
42. Watkiss P, Hunt A. Scoping study: reviewing the coverage of economic impascts in the CCRA. 2012.
43. Lantz V, Trenholm R, Wilson J, Richards W. Assessing market and non-market costs of freshwater flooding due to climate change in the community of Fredericton, eastern Canada. Clim Chang. 2012;110(1–2):347–372. doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0063-3.[Cross Ref]
44. Milojevic A: Flooding and health. Environ Health-Glob In press.
45. Health Protection Agency (HPA) The Effects of Flooding on Mental Health. London: Health Protection Agency (HPA); 2011.
46. World Health Organisation (WHO) Floods in the WHO European Region: health effects and their prevention. 2013.
47. Stanke C, Murray V, Amlot R, Nurse J, Williams R. The effects of flooding on mental health: Outcomes and recommendations from a review of the literature. PLoS Curr. 2012;4:e4f9f1fa9c3cae.[PMC free article][PubMed]
48. Paranjothy S, Gallacher J, Amlot R, Rubin GJ, Page L, Baxter T, Wight J, Kirrage D, McNaught R, Palmer SR. Psychosocial impact of the summer 2007 floods in England. BMC Public Health. 2011;11 [PMC free article][PubMed]
49. Mason V, Andrews H, Upton D. The psychological impact of exposure to floods. Psychol Health Med. 2010;15(1):61–73. doi: 10.1080/13548500903483478.[PubMed][Cross Ref]
50. Whittler R, Medd W, Deemog H, Kashefi E, Mort M, Twigger RC, Walker G, Watson N. After the Rain – learning the lessons from flood recovery in Hull. 2010.
51. Klinger C, Landeg O, Murray V. Power outages, extreme events and health: a systematic review of the literature from 2011-2012. PLoS Curr. 2014;6:ecurrents.dis.04eb1dc5e73dd1377e05a10e9edde673. doi:10.1371/currents.dis.04eb1dc5e73dd1377e05a10e9edde673. [PMC free article][PubMed]
52. Houston D, Werritty A, Bassett D, Geddes A, Hoolachan A, McMillan M. Pluvial (rain-related) flooding in urban areas: the invisible hazard. 2011.
53. Lowe D, Ebi KL, Forsberg B. Factors increasing vulnerability to health effects before, during and after floods. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(12):7015–7067. doi: 10.3390/ijerph10127015.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]
54. Pringle P, Paavola J, Dale N, Sibille R, Kent N, Le Cornu E. PREPARE: Understanding the equity and distributional impacts of climate risks and adaptation options. 2013.
55. Office for National Statistics . 2010-based National Population Projections Reference Volume: Chapter 2: Results. Series PP2. 2012.
56. Appleby J. Spending on health and social care over the next 50 years: why think long term? In. London: King's Fund; 2013.
57. Preston I, Banks N, Hargreaves K, Kazmericzak A, Lucas K, Mayne R, Downing C, Street R. Climate change and social justice: an evidence review. 2014.
58. Bichard E, Kazmierczak A. Are homeowners willing to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change? Clim Chang. 2012;112(3–4):633–654. doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0257-8.[Cross Ref]
59. Williams K, Gupta R, Smith I, Joynt J, Hopkins D, Bramley G, Payne C, Gregg M, Hambleton R, Bates-Brkljac N, et al. Suburban Neighbourhood Adaptation for a Changing Climate (SNACC): Final report. 2012.
60. England PH. Heatwave plan for England: protecting health and reducing harm from severe heat and heatwaves. 2015.
61. Johnson C, Penning-Rowsell E, Parker D. Natural and imposed injustices: the challenges in implementing ‘fair’ flood risk management policy in England. Geogr J. 2007;173:374–390. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4959.2007.00256.x.[Cross Ref]
A general view on the chimneys of the Hsieh-ho Power Plant in Keelung, northern Taiwan. EPA/DAVID CHANG
In a paper published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, scientists demonstrate the full ramifications of a widely accepted theory about climate change: that it will almost certainly have a disproportionate impact on the poor. Acknowledging this fact in models, they find, can drastically change estimates of how climate change will affect the economy, and leads to a deeply troubling conclusion — climate change won’t just hit the poor hardest, but it will exacerbate existing inequality within societies.
The disproportionate effect of climate change on the poor isn’t a new idea. But in general, while the economic models used to inform climate policies have accounted for income inequalities between different countries or regions of the world, they’ve failed to acknowledge that these inequalities exist within countries as well.
“The lacking description of subregional/national inequality is one of the most glaring lacunae in these models,” said lead author Francis Dennig, an assistant professor of economics at Yale-NUS College in Singapore, in an email to The Post.
Dennig and his colleagues decided to see what would happen if they tweaked a leading climate-economy model, known as RICE (the Regional Integrated model of Climate and the Economy), to account for inequalities within different regions of the world — essentially acknowledging that different countries contain people of both higher and lower incomes. They found that when they assumed a scenario in which lower-income sectors of society were hit hardest by the effects of climate change,a key factor in our understanding of the economic effects of climate change changeddrastically in comparison to models that didn’t take these inequalities into account.
Why carbon may be even more costly than we thought. This key factor is the optimal price that governments should place on emitting a ton of carbon as an incentive for individuals and industries to cut down on their greenhouse gas emissions. It’s an estimation closely tied to a value known as the “social cost of carbon” — the estimated economic cost of every additional ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, based on how much damage that ton could help bring about in terms of climate-related effects.
It turns out that the estimation of these values is heavily dependent on the way climate change impacts people of differing income levels. If people with lower incomes are disproportionately affected by climate change, as many scientists and economists believe they will be, then these damages could cause them to become less well-off than previous generations — essentially slowing, halting or — in extreme cases — even reversing their economic growth.
If this becomes true, and whole segments of the population are forced to endure more than their proportional share of climate change damages, then greater climate mitigation efforts — in the form of higher estimates of the social cost of carbon, which translate into higher carbon prices — will be considered optimal.
The danger with models that don’t take these inequalities into consideration is that they tend to average the economic conditions of people within regions or countries, and doing so can have the effect of masking the worst economic climate-caused damages in those countries. Thus, the models will assume that less intensive mitigation strategies are warranted.
So in the modified model used in the new study, when the income inequalities were factored in, suddenly the worst climate damages became apparent, and the model compensated for them by producing higher values for the carbon prices necessary to mitigate or prevent these future effects. What this means, in effect, is that climate change was suddenly viewed as even costlier because it was revealed to be keeping poor people poor to a greater extent than estimated in existing models.
“Most of the efforts on quantifying damage [from climate change] are still just trying to improve on estimates of damage to the economy as a whole, without looking at its incidence across the income distribution,” Dennig said in his email. “We need to start directing our efforts at quantifying the distribution.”
Furthermore, he added, the results suggest that existing models have been underestimating the need for aggressive climate policies by not taking into account the idea that income inequalities exist within regions, and that the poor will be disproportionately affected by climate change.
Discounting “discount rates.” The results help inform an ongoing debate about the way the social cost of carbon should be calculated. In existing models, the biggest variable that affects these cost estimates is a factor known as the discount rate. This is a rate, similar in concept to the idea of an interest rate, that’s applied to carbon cost estimates, and is meant to represent how much people value future generations — or, looked at from another angle, how important we think it is to avoid releasing a ton of carbon into the air, given that its effects aren’t immediate.
This is a tricky concept even for expert economists, and given that the whole idea of a discount rate revolves around murky ethical and social considerations, there’s no universally agreed upon answer. Therefore, different models apply different discount rates — for example, a rate of 3 percent versus a rate of 5 percent. Higher rates suggest that we value the future effects of climate change less, so they result in a lower estimated cost of carbon, which translates into weaker carbon pricing policies.
Economists who favor higher discount rates (and, thus, a lower social cost of carbon) often justify their position by the idea that the global economy as a whole is growing and future generations will be better off than current ones — thus, climate damages will have less of an impact on them, economically speaking. But the modified model suggests that this won’t necessarily be the case for lower-income segments of society, whose welfare may decline as a result of the impacts of climate change.
In their modified model, the researchers kept a discount value that some economists have argued is high. But notably, when they assumed a disproportionate effect of climate change on the poor, the model produced an optimal carbon price similar to what would be generated in an existing model that adopted a lower discount rate — in other words, the carbon price skyrockets.
The finding packs a punch, suggesting that climate inequalities could be just as important in informing policy as the discount rate.
“We all know that discounting is incredibly important for how to think about climate policy,” Dennig said. “But here we point out that there is another aspect about the climate that is equally important, namely, how the impacts of climate change are likely to be distributed.”
The new paper fundamentally challenges the idea that all people in the future will be more affluent than previous generations. The tweaked model suggests that unequal effects of climate change can slow the economic growth of people with lower incomes, and in some cases even halt growth altogether.
“If climate impacts are borne mostly by the poor, then the future poor will, in fact, be very poor indeed,” Dennig said in his email. “Even while the average income is growing inexorably, climate change would be exacerbating inequality and hindering poverty reduction.”
There’s no national carbon-pricing scheme in the U.S., although the government has produced several estimates for the social cost of carbon using existing models (which do not take such inequalities into account). Currently, the most widely acknowledged estimate is $37 per ton, which many economists feel is an underestimate already. The results from this paper further suggest that these estimates should be revised upward, taking income inequalities and potential disproportionate impacts of climate change into account.
In the meantime, Dennig suggested that further work should focus on gaining a better understanding of just how unequal the future effects of climate change will be. The scenarios assumed in his modified model, which assumed the poor would suffer a higher proportion of damages, were theoretical, even if many climate experts would agree that there’s a high probability this will be the case in many places.
Such work will be important to national governments looking for the best ways to slash their carbon output in the future — particularly if an international emissions reduction agreement is reached at the UN climate conference ongoing in Paris.
Producing the most accurate estimates for the social cost of carbon will, in turn, inform more effective and faster-acting emissions reduction schemes in the future. And that could make all the difference to subsequent generations, whose future — if this paper has anything to say about it — could be in greater jeopardy than we thought.