He said that for Australia, the cost is due to “changes in sea level and in particular the loss of agricultural productivity” due to climate change. The research was conducted by a leading economist at the Australian National University and former member of reserve bank Warwick McKibbin and colleagues from the ANU and the Brookings Institution in Washington. It examines the economic and well-being costs of individual nations through the implementation of the Paris Agreement. The environmental benefits of each country or region are then offset to infer the net results of the policy. The costs to Australia come mainly from other countries that implement the Paris Agreement, thereby taxing Australia`s coal and gas exports. Australia`s environmental benefits in reducing the use of fossil fuels occur almost exclusively in its own country. Although the Australian government has not quantified specific costs on the effects of climate change, the Department of Environment and Energy has imagined that “Australia with … The impact of climate change in a number of sectors.” Diplomatic costs around the world could be much broader in the long run, says Hervé Lemahieu, director of the Lowy Institute`s power and diplomacy program. Fossil fuel exporting regions in Australia, the OPEC Oil Exporting Nations Club and Russia are suffering GDP losses as a result of the Paris Agreement. Weifeng Liu, Warwick J. McKibbin, Adele Morris and Peter J. Wilcoxen Australia`s Intended NDC, which the federal government released in August 2015 before the Paris Agreement was adopted, called on Australia to “achieve an economic target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 per cent from 2005 to 2030 levels.” However, Australia has qualified its objectives by reserving the right to adapt its objective, “if the rules and other terms of support of the agreement are different in a way that greatly influences the definition of our objective.” Australia did not commit to carbon neutrality in the second half of this century. The modelling here, although still evolving, is already clear.

We can imagine the cost of achieving a 2050 Paris Agreement target for Australia (about 1.8 degrees Celsius of warming, which is slightly less and more aggressive than a 45% reduction in emissions by 2030 compared to 2005), provided the rest of the world is equally equivalent. This cost is $122 billion, representing net export losses, land use changes, losses (well-being) and limited negative emission technologies. This is more than a 20-1 report on the damage caused by climate change and the cost of reducing emissions! Even a ratio of 10 to 1 would be exceptional. Low cost and high efficiency are largely due to the rapid decline in renewable energy prices. The transition to renewable energy is driving down electricity prices and labour and capital in the fossil fuel industry are largely integrated into other sectors. However, none of these measures are fully planned for extreme weather events and, in particular, damage from potential bushfires has not been taken into account. The estimated cost of recent bushfires in Australia ranges from $4.4 billion (well defined) to a more credible estimate of more than $100 billion, indicating that the cost of environmental damage and the impact on human health are difficult to measure, while losses in tourism, infrastructure and property are more tangible. Biodiversity losses resulting, for example, from electoral modelling to encourage funding for biodiversity (without asking participants for a dollar, but rather to give them paired decisions on different alternatives) would indicate that the damage to Australia (in QLD, NSW and Victoria) would now exceed $240 billion by 2050. They also point out that the estimates do not include the cost of economic retaliatory measures against countries withdrawing from Paris and are “perhaps overly optimistic about the benefits.

retr