Smokestacks in China. Photo: Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

The costs of keeping global warming below 1.5°C would exceed the economic benefits up through the year 2100, according to a new study.

Why it matters: One of the biggest challenges to climate action is time delay: we need to pay now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we won't experience the full benefits of those actions for generations into the future.

By the numbers: In the study, published in PLOS One, researchers project keeping warming below 1.5°C would result in a net loss to the global economy of approximately $40 trillion through 2100, compared to policies that would keep warming to 2°C.

  • That's because "transitioning from energy-dense fossil fuels back to more dilute and intermittent renewable sources of energy like solar and wind requires more in terms of land, human time and machinery to produce the same amount of energy," Patrick Brown, a climate scientist and a co-author of the paper, tweeted.
  • That lowers general economic well-being, which in turns tends to fall hardest on the poorest in the world.

Between the lines: By the 22nd century, however, as the potential effects of climate change continue to compound, the benefits of stronger climate action begin to exceed the economic costs.

  • By 2300, the researchers calculate the net benefits would reach thousands of trillions of dollars.

The big picture: Because CO2 warms the atmosphere for decades to centuries, there's a built in time delay to the physics of climate change that in turn reinforces political obstacles to action.

  • When we pay to reduce carbon emissions now, the full effects aren't felt until the future, which means the present generation has to sacrifice to help save the next ones.

Yes, but: The authors admit climate change will have major costs that are difficult to fit into an economic model, like widespread biodiversity loss, while cutting carbon emissions could have more immediate co-benefits beyond climate change, like reducing toxic levels of air pollution.

The bottom line: There are many reasons why climate change is considered a wicked problem, but its time delay is one of the wickedest.

Go deeper

Ben Geman, author of Generate
20 hours ago - Energy & Environment

U.S. cities' lagging climate progress

Expand chart
Reproduced from a Brookings Institution report; Chart: Axios Visuals

A just-published Brookings Institution analysis of U.S. cities' pledges to cut carbon emissions reveals very mixed results.

Why it matters: The potential — and limits — of city and state initiatives have gotten more attention amid President Trump's scuttling of Obama-era national policies.

Dave Lawler, author of World
8 mins ago - World

Special report: Trump's hopes of nuclear deal with Putin come down to the wire

Illustration: Lazaro Gamio/Axios

A surprise offer from Vladimir Putin has the U.S. and Russia once again circling a potential pre-election nuclear deal.

The big picture: The last treaty constraining the U.S. and Russia, New START, is due to expire on Feb. 5, 2021, two weeks after the next U.S. presidential inauguration. For the first time since the height of the Cold War, the nuclear guardrails could come off.

The cliffhanger could be ... Georgia

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

It hasn't backed a Democrat for president since 1992, but Georgia's changing demographics may prove pivotal this year — not only to Trump v. Biden, but also to whether Democrats take control of the Senate.

Why it matters: If the fate of the Senate did hinge on Georgia, it might be January before we know the outcome. Meanwhile, voters' understanding of this power in the final days of the election could juice turnout enough to impact presidential results.