Global warming could cut over 60 countries' credit ratings by 2030, study warns

[webfact]

FILE PHOTO: Smoke rises above a factory at sunset in Rugby, Britain February 10, 2021. REUTERS/Matthew Childs/File Photo

By Marc Jones

LONDON (Reuters) - A new algorithm-based study by a group of UK universities has predicted that 63 countries – roughly half the number rated by the likes of S&P Global, Moody's and Fitch - could see their credit ratings cut because of climate change by 2030.

Researchers from Cambridge University, the University of East Anglia and London-based SOAS looked at a "realistic scenario" known as RCP 8.5, where carbon and other polluting emissions continue rising in coming decades.

They then looked at how the likely negative impact of rising temperatures, sea levels and other climate change effects on countries' economies and finances might affect their credit ratings.

"We find that 63 sovereigns suffer climate-induced downgrades of approximately 1.02 notches by 2030, rising to 80 sovereigns facing an average downgrade of 2.48 notches by 2100," the study https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/media/uploads/files/Rising_Climate_Falling_Ratings_Working_Paper.pdf  released on Thursday said.

The hardest hit countries included China, Chile, Malaysia, and Mexico which could see six notches of downgrades by the end of the century, as well as the United States, Germany, Canada, Australia, India, and Peru that could see around four.

"Our results show that virtually all countries, whether rich or poor, hot or cold, will suffer downgrades if the current trajectory of carbon emissions is maintained."

The study also estimated that as rating cuts usually increase countries' borrowing costs in international markets the climate-induced downgrades would add $137–$205 billion to countries' annual debt service payments by 2100.

In an alternative 'RCP 2.6' scenario where CO2 emissions start falling and go to zero by 2100, the rating impact would be just over half a notch on average and the combined additional cost would be a more modest $23–34 billion.

As companies' borrowing costs generally track those of the countries they operate in, their combined annual debt bills were predicted to rise $35.8–$62.6 billion in the higher emissions scenario by 2100 and $7.2–$12.6 billion in the lower one.

"There are caveats, there are no scientifically credible quantitative estimates of how climate change will impact social and political factors," the paper said. "Thus, our findings should be considered as conservative."

(Reporting by Marc Jones; editing by Richard Pullin)

-- © Copyright Reuters 2021-03-19

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Patong2021]

Politically correct delivery of somber news. Always easy to criticize free world, but at least theya re doing something and are making big effort. The same cannot be said for countries like Russia, China, India, LATAM. and much of SE Asia.  Always  westerners fault, and no one is ever responsible elsewhere.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Politically correct delivery of somber news. Always easy to criticize free world, but at least theya re doing something and are making big effort. The same cannot be said for countries like Russia, China, India, LATAM. and much of SE Asia.  Always  westerners fault, and no one is ever responsible elsewhere.

Did you actually read the article? Where was any nation or bloc of nations singled out for criticism? Pavlovian much?

[placeholder]

I did wonder about that statement and started to read the report to see in what context it was said. I haven't found it in the introduction or the conclusion. 

That said it's obvious that increasing heat and rising seas will have a disproportionately deleterious effect on those nations that can afford it least.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

"There are caveats, there are no scientifically credible quantitative estimates of how climate change will impact social and political factors," the paper said. "Thus, our findings should be considered as conservative."

In other words they are guessing, IMO.

[mr mr]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In other words they are guessing, IMO.

i know some great beach front property you may be interested in. 

[mrfill]

14 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Politically correct delivery of somber news. Always easy to criticize free world, but at least theya re doing something and are making big effort. The same cannot be said for countries like Russia, China, India, LATAM. and much of SE Asia.  Always  westerners fault, and no one is ever responsible elsewhere.

Well, you say that, but the World Bank would appear to differ. They do use real data though.

 

"The biggest absolute emissions come from China and the United States. In terms of CO2 emissions per capita, China is ranked only ranked 47th, at 7.5 metric tonnes per capita. The US is ranked 11th at 16.5 per capita and amongst countries with sizeable populations, has the highest CO2 emissions per capita. India is the third highest country in terms of absolute emissions, but only 158th in terms of per capita output with 1.7 metric tonnes per capita."

Selected countries CO2 emissions per capita

 

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita/

 

[OswaldBastable]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

That said it's obvious that increasing heat and rising seas will have a disproportionately deleterious effect on those nations that can afford it least.

I see no evidence of rising seas.

 

[placeholder]

17 minutes ago, OswaldBastable said:

I see no evidence of rising seas.

 

Took a stroll on the boardwalk, did you?

[GreasyFingers]

This report must out of date. The buzz words are now climate change, not global warming.

[OswaldBastable]

5 hours ago, placeholder said:

Took a stroll on the boardwalk, did you?

If the sea hasn't risen in the last 60 years, it seems unlikely it will rise in the next 10. Democrat Point, here's an entire state park created by new land in the last 100 years.

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, OswaldBastable said:

If the sea hasn't risen in the last 60 years, it seems unlikely it will rise in the next 10. Democrat Point, here's an entire state park created by new land in the last 100 years.

 

 

I don't understand how anyone with any critical sense could construe such a cliaim about a  travelogue about a sandbar of the coast of long island. Do you know that there's such a thing as the internet. And in just a minute or two you could actually find out why it's nonsense.

Fire Island is  a big sandbar that didn't even exist until the mid 19th century. And now it's eroding. Which is why there's a 1.5 billion dollar project in the works to keep it from  being washed away. It's str

 Major Milestone Reached for Fire Island to Montauk Point (FIMP) Project

https://zeldin.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/major-milestone-reached-fire-island-montauk-point-fimp-project

Why do you think a local phenomenon like a sandbar that has anything to do with rising seas or rather the seas not rising.?You might want to look at this to see one way actual scientists measure sea levels: 

What is Jason-3?

Jason-3 is a satellite mission that supports scientific, commercial and practical applications related to sea level rise, ocean circulation, and climate change. Jason-3 follows the current operational altimeter satellite, Jason-2, in maintaining satellite altimetry observations of global sea surface height. Jason-3 is an international cooperative mission in which NOAA is partnering with the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES, France’s governmental space agency), European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

Jason-3 will make highly detailed measurements of sea surface height, which is a measure used to study sea level rise—a critical factor in understanding Earth’s dynamic climate.

https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/jason-3/mission.html

 

 

 

[onthedarkside]

Several posts have been removed, including a trolling graphic meme, a conspiracy theory post and a post altering a quote of the OP report.

 

[Pique Dard]

On 3/19/2021 at 1:30 AM, webfact said:

63 countries – roughly half the number rated by the likes of S&P Global, Moody's and Fitch - could see their credit ratings cut because of climate change by 2030.

tell that to trump and listen at his answer ????

[Stargeezr]

Per capita charts are just utter bunk.  Canada is a very large country, and not crammed with people,  like India or China is.

   Carbon taxes  are not helping anyone either. Next.  Oh and please, I will not drink the purple cool aid.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

Per capita charts are just utter bunk.  Canada is a very large country, and not crammed with people,  like India or China is.

   Carbon taxes  are not helping anyone either. Next.  Oh and please, I will not drink the purple cool aid.

"Per capita charts are just utter bunk." Disagree, you have to compare them like for like. You can compare per capita charts for the developed countries, like Western European countries, US etc. But yes, developing countries like India and China can not be compared like for like on a per capita basis with e.g. US.

 

"Carbon taxes  are not helping anyone either." They do help if they help reduce consumption.

[bert bloggs]

Well the green party in Brighton have solved the problem of global warming ,or climate change,they are going to ban barbecues on the beach. That will do it.

Brighton land of the woke.

[placeholder]

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

"Per capita charts are just utter bunk." Disagree, you have to compare them like for like. You can compare per capita charts for the developed countries, like Western European countries, US etc. But yes, developing countries like India and China can not be compared like for like on a per capita basis with e.g. US.

The best way to do it is a ratio of emissions to GDP. 

[stevenl]

42 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

Well the green party in Brighton have solved the problem of global warming ,or climate change,they are going to ban barbecues on the beach. That will do it.

Brighton land of the woke.

Good to hear that Brighton's credit rating won't be hurt.

[Jeffr2]

On 3/19/2021 at 5:16 PM, mrfill said:

Well, you say that, but the World Bank would appear to differ. They do use real data though.

 

"The biggest absolute emissions come from China and the United States. In terms of CO2 emissions per capita, China is ranked only ranked 47th, at 7.5 metric tonnes per capita. The US is ranked 11th at 16.5 per capita and amongst countries with sizeable populations, has the highest CO2 emissions per capita. India is the third highest country in terms of absolute emissions, but only 158th in terms of per capita output with 1.7 metric tonnes per capita."

Selected countries CO2 emissions per capita

 

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita/

 

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions

[Jeffr2]

On 3/19/2021 at 5:23 PM, OswaldBastable said:

I see no evidence of rising seas.

 

You don't travel much, eh?

[nglodnig]

Sea levels are rising metres per millennia. I believe the latest figure was 1.9 or 19 (it doesn't make a lot of difference) MILLIMETRES per year. And, to put it in context, sea levels since the last ice age say 20,000 years ago have risen ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY METRES. For example, the North Sea used to be land not that long ago geologically speaking.  So yet another thing I am not losing sleep about worrying for my grandchildren. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/19/2021 at 7:29 PM, mr mr said:

i know some great beach front property you may be interested in. 

Didn't Obama already buy some beachfront property at Martha's vineyard? If it's good enough for him it's good enough for me.

[onthedarkside]

An off-topic trolling meme has been removed.

 

[placeholder]

17 hours ago, nglodnig said:

Sea levels are rising metres per millennia. I believe the latest figure was 1.9 or 19 (it doesn't make a lot of difference) MILLIMETRES per year. And, to put it in context, sea levels since the last ice age say 20,000 years ago have risen ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY METRES. For example, the North Sea used to be land not that long ago geologically speaking.  So yet another thing I am not losing sleep about worrying for my grandchildren. 

Sea levels were rising rapidly until about 7000 years ago and slowed to a standstill by the year 0. It was only in the 19th century, with the advent of industrial coal burning that sea levels started to rise again. And the rise is accelerating. Much of the worlds population lives on the coasts where the effects of rising seas are already being felt.

However, I believe that how you would react to these findings was a huge concern of climatologists. So I'm sure they'll be much relieved that you are still sleeping soundly.

[VincentRJ]

12 hours ago, placeholder said:

Sea levels were rising rapidly until about 7000 years ago and slowed to a standstill by the year 0. It was only in the 19th century, with the advent of industrial coal burning that sea levels started to rise again. And the rise is accelerating. Much of the worlds population lives on the coasts where the effects of rising seas are already being felt.

However, I believe that how you would react to these findings was a huge concern of climatologists. So I'm sure they'll be much relieved that you are still sleeping soundly.

This idea that sea levels have been stable for the past 7,000 years and have only started rising again since the beginning of the industrial revolution, is not in agreement with the geological evidence.

 

Sea levels have always been changing, and climate has always been changing, due to natural causes. However, such changes do not occur uniformly across the globe. The sea might appear to be rising along certain coastlines and islands because the land is slowly sinking. In other areas there might be no evidence that sea levels have risen at all during the past century because the land is very slowly rising.

 

Determining the precise rate of global sea level rise when the rate is so small, as it has been during the 20th century, is very difficult and probably impossible. From the following Wikipedia article:

 

"Based on tide gauge data, the rate of global average sea level rise during the 20th century lies in the range 0.8 to 3.3 mm/yr, with an average rate of 1.8 mm/yr."

 

From the same article, with lots of references to scientific studies at the end of the article:

 

"Solid geological evidence, based largely upon analysis of deep cores of coral reefs, exists only for 3 major periods of accelerated sea level rise, called meltwater pulses, during the last deglaciation." 

 

"Meltwater pulse 1C was centered at 8,000 years ago and produced a rise of 6.5 m in less than 140 years, such that sea levels 5000 years ago were around 3m higher than present day, as evidenced in many locations by fossil beaches."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level

 

Attached is a graph showing the variations in sea level rise in different locations, since the beginning of Meltwater Pulse 1C around 8,000 years ago. Note that the sea level changes on the right side of the graph are in metres, not mm. The estimated rise of around 210 mm during the 20th century is comparatively trivial compared with the rate of changes that have occurred during the past 8,000 years.

 

If we go back 20,000 years when sea levels were at least 120 metres below current levels, the average sea level rise per year, to the present, is 6 mm, which is more than 3 times the estimated rate during the 20th century. However, the actual rate during certain periods of a century or more, during the past 20,000 years, has varied significantly, sometimes falling and sometimes rising by several metres in a century.

 

But never mind the geological history! As long as we continue to reduce our CO2 emissions, the oceans will stop rising, extreme weather events will become less severe and less frequent, and we will all be safe and secure. ????
 

[Jeffr2]

34 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

This idea that sea levels have been stable for the past 7,000 years and have only started rising again since the beginning of the industrial revolution, is not in agreement with the geological evidence.

 

Sea levels have always been changing, and climate has always been changing, due to natural causes. However, such changes do not occur uniformly across the globe. The sea might appear to be rising along certain coastlines and islands because the land is slowly sinking. In other areas there might be no evidence that sea levels have risen at all during the past century because the land is very slowly rising.

 

Determining the precise rate of global sea level rise when the rate is so small, as it has been during the 20th century, is very difficult and probably impossible. From the following Wikipedia article:

 

"Based on tide gauge data, the rate of global average sea level rise during the 20th century lies in the range 0.8 to 3.3 mm/yr, with an average rate of 1.8 mm/yr."

 

From the same article, with lots of references to scientific studies at the end of the article:

 

"Solid geological evidence, based largely upon analysis of deep cores of coral reefs, exists only for 3 major periods of accelerated sea level rise, called meltwater pulses, during the last deglaciation." 

 

"Meltwater pulse 1C was centered at 8,000 years ago and produced a rise of 6.5 m in less than 140 years, such that sea levels 5000 years ago were around 3m higher than present day, as evidenced in many locations by fossil beaches."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level

 

Attached is a graph showing the variations in sea level rise in different locations, since the beginning of Meltwater Pulse 1C around 8,000 years ago. Note that the sea level changes on the right side of the graph are in metres, not mm. The estimated rise of around 210 mm during the 20th century is comparatively trivial compared with the rate of changes that have occurred during the past 8,000 years.

 

If we go back 20,000 years when sea levels were at least 120 metres below current levels, the average sea level rise per year, to the present, is 6 mm, which is more than 3 times the estimated rate during the 20th century. However, the actual rate during certain periods of a century or more, during the past 20,000 years, has varied significantly, sometimes falling and sometimes rising by several metres in a century.

 

But never mind the geological history! As long as we continue to reduce our CO2 emissions, the oceans will stop rising, extreme weather events will become less severe and less frequent, and we will all be safe and secure. ????
 

But no denying the world is getting warmer.  Caused by human activity.  And sea levels are rising.  Just ask those living on low atolls in the South Pacific.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

This idea that sea levels have been stable for the past 7,000 years and have only started rising again since the beginning of the industrial revolution, is not in agreement with the geological evidence.

 

Sea levels have always been changing, and climate has always been changing, due to natural causes. However, such changes do not occur uniformly across the globe. The sea might appear to be rising along certain coastlines and islands because the land is slowly sinking. In other areas there might be no evidence that sea levels have risen at all during the past century because the land is very slowly rising.

 

Determining the precise rate of global sea level rise when the rate is so small, as it has been during the 20th century, is very difficult and probably impossible. From the following Wikipedia article:

 

"Based on tide gauge data, the rate of global average sea level rise during the 20th century lies in the range 0.8 to 3.3 mm/yr, with an average rate of 1.8 mm/yr."

 

From the same article, with lots of references to scientific studies at the end of the article:

 

"Solid geological evidence, based largely upon analysis of deep cores of coral reefs, exists only for 3 major periods of accelerated sea level rise, called meltwater pulses, during the last deglaciation." 

 

"Meltwater pulse 1C was centered at 8,000 years ago and produced a rise of 6.5 m in less than 140 years, such that sea levels 5000 years ago were around 3m higher than present day, as evidenced in many locations by fossil beaches."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level

 

Attached is a graph showing the variations in sea level rise in different locations, since the beginning of Meltwater Pulse 1C around 8,000 years ago. Note that the sea level changes on the right side of the graph are in metres, not mm. The estimated rise of around 210 mm during the 20th century is comparatively trivial compared with the rate of changes that have occurred during the past 8,000 years.

 

If we go back 20,000 years when sea levels were at least 120 metres below current levels, the average sea level rise per year, to the present, is 6 mm, which is more than 3 times the estimated rate during the 20th century. However, the actual rate during certain periods of a century or more, during the past 20,000 years, has varied significantly, sometimes falling and sometimes rising by several metres in a century.

 

But never mind the geological history! As long as we continue to reduce our CO2 emissions, the oceans will stop rising, extreme weather events will become less severe and less frequent, and we will all be safe and secure. ????
 

Amateur science trying to override a wide, wide consensus on the topic of reputable scientists just makes me very, very sad.

[VincentRJ]

57 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

But no denying the world is getting warmer.  Caused by human activity.  And sea levels are rising.  Just ask those living on low atolls in the South Pacific.

 

Of course not. The world is either getting warmer or cooler. That's the nature of climate. It's always changing to some degree. To what extent human activity is contributing to the current, very moderate warming, is not known with any certainty. Nor is it known with any certainty if such warming will have a net, negative effect, globally. There will always be some negative effects from warming in some regions, but also positive effects in other regions, and one, over all, positive effect of increased CO2 levels, plus the slight warming trend, is a greening of the planet and an increase in food production.

 

As I've mentioned in my previous post, there are many place where sea levels appear to be rising at an alarming rate because the land is actually sinking. Reducing CO2 emissions will not stop the land sinking.

[VincentRJ]

46 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Amateur science trying to override a wide, wide consensus on the topic of reputable scientists just makes me very, very sad.

It makes me so sad that some people seem to believe there can be a 'scientific' consensus on such a complex topic as climate change and sea level rise. Even the IPCC, the so-called great authority on climate, has admitted that the climate is a very complex, chaotic, and non-linear system. They have also expressed uncertainty (low confidence) that extreme weather events have been increasing in severity and frequency, on a global scale, since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

 

Any consensus is mainly political, not scientific.