Delayed climate action may leave us with no solution

Delaying tough climate action could do more than raise the damage bill for China and the world. A new modeling study has examined the social cost of carbon and what happens when climate efforts fall short.

In the United States and many other nations, the social cost of carbon informs government rules that assess the trade-offs of climate regulations.

Why climate action gets delayed

The work was led by Rong Wang, a climate policy researcher at Fudan University in Shanghai.

Wang’s research focuses on how energy choices, climate damage, and economic behavior reinforce one another over long periods across continents.

Many governments believe it’s cheaper to take weaker climate action right now. They’re assuming that as climate damage gets worse in the future, the need to cut emissions will become more obvious, and they can act more forcefully later instead of paying more upfront today.

The researchers tested this expectation and found that, in several scenarios, the incentive to cut emissions does not keep growing as damage rises.

The team used an integrated assessment model to explore different start dates for serious climate mitigation around the globe.

This model, which links the economy, energy use, and the climate system, can track how decisions about fossil fuels play out decades later.

What the model does differently

In the model, cutting fossil fuel supply by about half trims global economic output by roughly 5 to 8 percent. Pushing cuts to 90 percent can lower output by 21 to 51 percent, because replacing fossil energy is difficult and expensive.

Wang also added a “damage function” to the model that assumes climate damage gets worse more quickly as temperatures rise. This idea is based on evidence that even a moderate amount of warming can cause big economic problems.

When strong mitigation begins in the mid-2020s, the model produces futures where renewable energy dominates and climate damage stays below the worst cases.

If mitigation waits past mid-century, fossil fuels keep a big share and the chances of meeting temperature goals sink dangerously.

Climate transitions carry serious risks

The study introduces a socioeconomic tipping point, a sudden change in how societies respond. In the model, once damage eats into a tenth of income, the social cost of carbon drops and the world drifts toward weaker climate action.

Wang worries that beyond a certain point, rising damage might actually sap the will to decarbonize instead of strengthening it.

“Delaying strong mitigation to phase out fossil fuels could produce a self reinforcing disincentive,” said Wang.

To see whether this pattern holds up under uncertainty, Wang ran 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations across a wide range of plausible futures.

Signs of tipping points

Across the simulations, a worrisome pattern emerges in cases where incentives collapse. When climate damage climbs and renewable energy makes up only a small slice of supply, the model treats that combination as a warning sign.

Wang proposes tracking climate damage and the share of renewables in the Global Stocktake, a regular review of progress under the Paris Agreement.

If reports show high damage with weak renewable growth, that pairing could flag that the world is nearing tipping point this model warns about.

The risks of delayed climate action

Because many government rules rely on the social cost of carbon, a lower number would quickly affect many decisions at once. It would push policies toward weaker pollution limits, more fossil fuel projects, and slower growth of clean energy.

The study warns that basing climate policy too heavily on short-term economics can be risky.

If those metrics suggest cuts are no longer worth it while damage spreads through societies, leaders face pressure to look away instead of acting.

The takeaway is clear: models can flag when the policies shaping climate decisions begin to point us in the wrong direction.

By acting early to build clean energy and phase down fossil fuels, societies can avoid the dangerous conditions where climate damage surges and meaningful action slips out of reach.

The study is published in the journal Energy & Environment Nexus.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–