Listing 1 - 10 of 22 | << page >> |
Sort by
|
Choose an application
The impacts of climate change on poverty depend on the magnitude of climate change, but also on demographic and socioeconomic trends. An analysis of hundreds of baseline scenarios for future economic development in the absence of climate change in 92 countries shows that the drivers of poverty eradication differ across countries. Two representative scenarios are selected from these hundreds. One scenario is optimistic regarding poverty and is labeled "prosperity;" the other scenario is pessimistic and labeled "poverty." Results from sector analyses of climate change impacts-in agriculture, health, and natural disasters-are introduced in the two scenarios. By 2030, climate change is found to have a significant impact on poverty, especially through higher food prices and reduction of agricultural production in Africa and South Asia, and through health in all regions. But the magnitude of these impacts depends on development choices. In the prosperity scenario with rapid, inclusive, and climate-informed development, climate change increases poverty by between 3 million and 16 million in 2030. The increase in poverty reaches between 35 million and 122 million if development is delayed and less inclusive (the poverty scenario).
Climate change --- Climate change economics --- Development --- Inequalities --- Macroeconomics and economic growth --- Poverty --- Poverty reduction --- Rural poverty reduction --- Scenarios --- Science and technology development --- Science of climate change --- Shared socio-economic pathways --- Uncertainty
Choose an application
The impacts of climate change on poverty depend on the magnitude of climate change, but also on demographic and socioeconomic trends. An analysis of hundreds of baseline scenarios for future economic development in the absence of climate change in Vietnam shows that the main determinant of the eradication of extreme poverty by 2030 is the income of unskilled agriculture workers, followed by redistribution policies. Results from sector analyses of climate change impacts-in agriculture, health, and natural disasters-are introduced in each of the hundreds scenarios. By 2030 climate change is found to have a significant impact on poverty in Vietnam in about a quarter of the scenarios, with 400,000 to more than a million people living in extreme poverty just because of climate change impacts. Those scenarios in which climate change pushes the most people into poverty are scenarios with slow structural change away from agriculture, low productivity growth in agriculture, high population growth, and low redistribution levels. Conversely, in scenarios with rapid, inclusive, and climate-informed development, climate change has no impact on extreme poverty, although it still has an impact on the income of the bottom 40 percent.
Climate Change --- Development --- Inequalities --- Poverty --- Scenarios --- Shared Socio-Economic Pathways --- Uncertainty
Choose an application
Choose an application
The impacts of climate change on poverty depend on the magnitude of climate change, but also on demographic and socioeconomic trends. An analysis of hundreds of baseline scenarios for future economic development in the absence of climate change in 92 countries shows that the drivers of poverty eradication differ across countries. Two representative scenarios are selected from these hundreds. One scenario is optimistic regarding poverty and is labeled "prosperity;" the other scenario is pessimistic and labeled "poverty." Results from sector analyses of climate change impacts-in agriculture, health, and natural disasters-are introduced in the two scenarios. By 2030, climate change is found to have a significant impact on poverty, especially through higher food prices and reduction of agricultural production in Africa and South Asia, and through health in all regions. But the magnitude of these impacts depends on development choices. In the prosperity scenario with rapid, inclusive, and climate-informed development, climate change increases poverty by between 3 million and 16 million in 2030. The increase in poverty reaches between 35 million and 122 million if development is delayed and less inclusive (the poverty scenario).
Climate change --- Climate change economics --- Development --- Inequalities --- Macroeconomics and economic growth --- Poverty --- Poverty reduction --- Rural poverty reduction --- Scenarios --- Science and technology development --- Science of climate change --- Shared socio-economic pathways --- Uncertainty
Choose an application
Natural disasters have an impact on poverty through many different channels-economic growth, health, schooling, behaviors-that are difficult to quantify. It is nonetheless possible to assess the short-term impacts of income losses. A counterfactual scenario is built of what people's income would be in developing countries in the absence of natural disasters. This scenario uses surveys of 1.4 million households in 89 countries. Depending on where they live and work, what they consume, and the nature of their vulnerability, the additional income that each household in the survey could earn every year on average in the absence of natural disasters is calculated. The analysis concludes that if all disasters could be prevented next year, 26 million fewer people would be in extreme poverty-that is, living on less than USD 1.90 a day. A systematic analysis of the uncertainty suggests that this impact could lie between 7 million if all the most optimistic assumptions are combined, and 77 million if we retain only the most pessimistic assumptions.
Development --- Natural Disasters --- Poverty
Choose an application
This paper compares the temporal profile of efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions induced by two mitigation strategies: a regulation of all emissions with a carbon price and a regulation of emissions embedded in new capital only, using capital-based instruments such as investment regulation, differentiation of capital costs, or a carbon tax with temporary subsidies on brown capital. A Ramsey model is built with two types of capital: brown capital that produces a negative externality and green capital that does not. Abatement is obtained through structural change (green capital accumulation) and possibly through under-utilization of brown capital. Capital-based instruments and the carbon price lead to the same long-term balanced growth path, but they differ during the transition phase. The carbon price maximizes social welfare but may cause temporary under-utilization of brown capital, hurting the owners of brown capital and the workers who depend on it. Capital-based instruments cause larger intertemporal welfare loss, but they maintain the full utilization of brown capital, smooth efforts over time, and cause lower immediate utility loss. Green industrial policies including such capital-based instruments may thus be used to increase the political acceptability of a carbon price. More generally, the carbon price informs on the policy effect on intertemporal welfare but is not a good indicator to estimate the impact of the policy on instantaneous output, consumption, and utility.
Choose an application
"This report lays out a framework for understanding infrastructure resilience - the ability of infrastructure systems to function and meet users' needs during and after a natural hazard"--
Choose an application
This paper uses a Ramsey model with two types of capital to analyze the optimal transition to clean capital when polluting investment is irreversible. The cost of climate mitigation decomposes as a technical cost of using clean instead of polluting capital and a transition cost from the irreversibility of pre-existing polluting capital. With a carbon price, the transition cost can be limited by underutilizing polluting capital, at the expense of a loss in the value of polluting assets (stranded assets) and a drop in income. In contrast, policy instruments that focus on redirecting investments-such as feebates or environmental standards-prevent underutilization of existing capital, avoid stranded assets, and reduce short-term losses; but they reduce emissions more slowly and increase the intertemporal cost of the transition. The paper investigates inter- and intra-generational distributional impacts and the political acceptability of climate change mitigation policy instruments.
Climate Change Economics --- Climate Change Mitigation and Green House Gases --- Climate Mitigation Policy --- Economic Theory & Research --- Energy Efficiency Standards --- Environment --- Intergenerational Equity --- Investment & Investment Climate --- Macroeconomics and Economic Growth --- Mothballing --- Political Economy --- Social and Political Acceptability
Choose an application
Beyond the Gap: How Countries Can Afford the Infrastructure They Need while Protecting the Planet aims to shift the debate regarding investment needs away from a simple focus on spending more and toward a focus on spending better on the right objectives, using relevant metrics. It does so by offering a careful and systematic approach to estimating the funding needs to close the service gaps in water and sanitation, transportation, electricity, irrigation, and flood protection. Exploring thousands of scenarios, this report finds that funding needs depend on the service goals and policy choices of low- and middle-income countries and could range anywhere from 2 percent to 8 percent of GDP per year by 2030.Beyond the Gap also identifies a policy mix that will enable countries to achieve key international goals-universal access to water, sanitation, and electricity; greater mobility; improved food security; better protection from floods; and eventual full decarbonization-while limiting spending on new infrastructure to 4.5 percent of GDP per year. Importantly, the exploration of thousands of scenarios shows that infrastructure investment paths compatible with full decarbonization in the second half of the century need not cost more than more-polluting alternatives. Investment needs remain at 2 percent to 8 percent of GDP even when only the decarbonized scenarios are examined. The actual amount depends on the quality and quantity of services targeted, the timing of investments, construction costs, and complementary policies.Finally, investing in infrastructure is not enough; maintaining it also matters. Improving services requires much more than capital expenditure. Ensuring a steady flow of resources for operations and maintenance is a necessary condition for success. Good maintenance also generates substantial savings by reducing the total life-cycle cost of transport and water and sanitation infrastructure by more than 50 percent.
Infrastructure (Economics) --- Sustainable development --- Cost effectiveness. --- Developing countries.
Choose an application
Listing 1 - 10 of 22 | << page >> |
Sort by
|