Current model doesn't show real risks of climate change

Climate change has much greater risks than current models have shown, according to new research. A study by Dr Simon Dietz and Professor Nicholas Stern from the Grantham research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, suggests the model that is used to assess the risks of global warming does not take into account the latest findings on the topic. This means that climate change could be a more expensive prospect than previously thought. 

Professor Stern performed a review in 2006 that looked at the economic costs of global warming. He looked at a range of aspects, including health, water resources and food production, all of which come with a cost. The review said that climate change is a unique challenge for worldwide economies, suggesting it is the widest-ranging and biggest failure in the market that has ever been seen.

Now, seven years after the initial review, Professor Stern has said that his report had underestimated the onset and effect of climate change, as many areas are already being economically affected by rising global temperatures. He is now set to publish a new review in September this year, building upon the work he undertook in 2006.

The new review will modify the model that is currently used to assess climate change, as researchers argue that the Dynamic Integrated Climate Economy (DICE) model - which was developed in the 1990s - doesn't account for the most recent findings concerning global warming. Researchers have also suggested that the model also omits some of the risk uncertainties surrounding climate change.

Professor Stern said: “It is extremely important to understand the severe limitations of standard economic models, such as those cited in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which have made assumptions that simply do not reflect current knowledge about climate change and its potential impacts on the economy.

“Models that assume that catastrophic damages are not possible, fail to take account of the magnitude of the issues and the implications of the science.”