Here’s How Much Climate Change Could Cost the U.S.

Warming could exact a major economic toll, but reducing emissions and adapting to changes can alleviate those costs

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Climate change comes with a hefty bill. The United States stands to experience major economic losses over the 21st century as sea levels rise, heat waves become more frequent and rains fall in heavier bursts, according to the recently released National Climate Assessment (NCA). Sources of the costs range from damaged and abandoned coastal properties, to wages lost when it is too hot to work outdoors, to premature deaths caused by increased air pollution and disease exposure.

The report is put together by 13 federal agencies and includes input from hundreds of scientists, including many who work at academic institutions. Released every four years by Congressional mandate (this year’s NCA weighs in at 1,656 pages), it uses projections of climate change based on varying levels of greenhouse gas emissions—and figures in expected population changes—to estimate the toll a changing climate may exact on various sectors of the country’s economy. In the graphic below, Scientific American focuses on the sectors subject to the biggest impacts and compares the projected losses to current economic activity. Even for sectors in which the overall numbers seem relatively small, those involved can be hit hard. For example, losses in freshwater fishing would be felt disproportionately by small communities that depend on fishing-related tourism.

The NCA estimates are not intended to be exact predictions for specific years. Rather, they provide a sense of the scale of damage climate change may cause by the end of the century—and they show the major difference that reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to changes can make in the losses sustained. When it comes to lost hours of labor, for example, reducing emissions could cut the costs in half. And lowered emissions, combined with adaptations such as bolstering protective wetlands and buying out precarious properties, could avoid 90 percent of the costs that could be incurred by coastal areas.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The loss estimates should also be considered conservative because they do not factor in every way climate change might cause damage, according to the Environmental Protection Agency analysis the NCA drew from. For example, the costs of air pollution in this year’s report only included premature deaths linked to increased ozone, leaving out other pollutants.

Credit: Amanda Montañez; Source: Environmental Protection Agency, “Multi-Model Framework for Quantitative Sectoral Impacts Analysis: A Technical Report for the Fourth National Climate Assessment”; May 2017

Andrea Thompson is senior desk editor for life science at Scientific American, covering the environment, energy and earth sciences. She has been covering these issues for nearly two decades. Prior to joining Scientific American, she was a senior writer covering climate science at Climate Central and a reporter and editor at Live Science, where she primarily covered earth science and the environment. She has moderated panels, including as part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Media Zone, and appeared in radio and television interviews on major networks. She holds a graduate degree in science, health and environmental reporting from New York University, as well as a B.S. and an M.S. in atmospheric chemistry from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Follow Thompson on Bluesky @andreatweather.bsky.social

More by Andrea Thompson

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe