New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

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 editor for Earth and environment at Scientific American, covering the environment, energy and Earth sciences. She has been covering these topics 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

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe