Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

Effects of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation on Drought Impacts in the United States

Brent Boehlert Industrial Economics, Inc., and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Search for other papers by Brent Boehlert in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Ellen Fitzgerald Industrial Economics, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts

Search for other papers by Ellen Fitzgerald in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
James E. Neumann Industrial Economics, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts

Search for other papers by James E. Neumann in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Kenneth M. Strzepek Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Search for other papers by Kenneth M. Strzepek in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
Jeremy Martinich U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Search for other papers by Jeremy Martinich in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Jul 2015
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-14-00020.1
Page(s):
255–272
Restricted access

Abstract

The authors present a method for analyzing the economic benefits to the United States resulting from changes in drought frequency and severity due to global greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. The method begins by constructing reduced-form models of the effect of drought on agriculture and reservoir recreation in the contiguous United States. These relationships are then applied to drought projections based on two climate stabilization scenarios and two twenty-first-century time periods. Drought indices are sector specific and include both the standardized precipitation index and the Palmer drought severity index. It is found that the modeled regional effects of drought on each sector are negative, almost always statistically significant, and often large in magnitude. These results confirm that drought has been an important driver of historical reductions in economic activity in these sectors. Comparing a reference climate scenario to two GHG mitigation scenarios in 2050 and 2100, the authors find that, for the agricultural sector, mitigation reduces both drought incidence and damages through its effects on temperature and precipitation, despite regional differences in the sign and magnitude of effects under certain model scenarios. The current annual damages of drought across all sectors have been estimated at $6–$8 billion (U.S. dollars), but this analysis shows that average annual benefits of GHG mitigation to the U.S. agricultural sector alone reach $980 million by 2050 and upward of $2.2 billion by 2100. Benefits to reservoir recreation depend on reservoir location and data availability. Economic benefits of GHG mitigation are highest in the southwestern United States, where drought frequency is projected to increase most dramatically in the absence of GHG mitigation policies.

Denotes Open Access content.

Corresponding author address: Brent Boehlert, Industrial Economics, Inc., 2067 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02140. E-mail: bboehlert@indecon.com

Abstract

The authors present a method for analyzing the economic benefits to the United States resulting from changes in drought frequency and severity due to global greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. The method begins by constructing reduced-form models of the effect of drought on agriculture and reservoir recreation in the contiguous United States. These relationships are then applied to drought projections based on two climate stabilization scenarios and two twenty-first-century time periods. Drought indices are sector specific and include both the standardized precipitation index and the Palmer drought severity index. It is found that the modeled regional effects of drought on each sector are negative, almost always statistically significant, and often large in magnitude. These results confirm that drought has been an important driver of historical reductions in economic activity in these sectors. Comparing a reference climate scenario to two GHG mitigation scenarios in 2050 and 2100, the authors find that, for the agricultural sector, mitigation reduces both drought incidence and damages through its effects on temperature and precipitation, despite regional differences in the sign and magnitude of effects under certain model scenarios. The current annual damages of drought across all sectors have been estimated at $6–$8 billion (U.S. dollars), but this analysis shows that average annual benefits of GHG mitigation to the U.S. agricultural sector alone reach $980 million by 2050 and upward of $2.2 billion by 2100. Benefits to reservoir recreation depend on reservoir location and data availability. Economic benefits of GHG mitigation are highest in the southwestern United States, where drought frequency is projected to increase most dramatically in the absence of GHG mitigation policies.

Denotes Open Access content.

Corresponding author address: Brent Boehlert, Industrial Economics, Inc., 2067 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02140. E-mail: bboehlert@indecon.com
Save
Cover Weather, Climate, and Society
Weather, Climate, and Society

  • Adams, R. M., and Peck D. E. , 2009: Effects of climate change on drought frequency: Potential impacts and mitigation opportunities. Managing Water in a Time of Global Change: Mountains, Valleys and Flood Plains, A. Garrido and A. Dinar, Eds., Routledge, 117–130.

  • Alley, W. M., 1984: The Palmer drought severity index: Limitations and assumptions. J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 23, 1100–1109, doi:10.1175/1520-0450(1984)023<1100:TPDSIL>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Attavanich, W., and McCarl B. , 2014: How is CO2 affecting yields and technological progress? A statistical analysis. Climatic Change, 124, 747–762, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1128-x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Ball, E., Hallahan C. , and Nehring R. , 2004: Convergence of productivity: An analysis of the catch-up hypothesis within a panel of states. Amer. J. Agric. Econ., 86, 1315–1321, doi:10.1111/j.0002-9092.2004.00683.x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Ball, E., Wang S. L. , Nehring R. , and Mosheim R. , 2011: Agricultural productivity in the U.S. USDA Economic Research Service, accessed 6 February 2013. [Available online at http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-productivity-in-the-us.aspx.]

  • Ball, E., Schimmelpfennig D. , and Wang S. L. , 2013: Is agricultural productivity growth slowing? Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy, 35, 435–450, doi:10.1093/aepp/ppt014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bierwagen, B. G., Theobald D. M. , Pyke C. R. , Choate A. , Groth P. , Thomas J. V. , and Morefield P. , 2010: National housing and impervious surface scenarios for integrated climate impact assessments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 20 887–20 892, doi:10.1073/pnas.1002096107.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bjerga, A., 2012: Drought-parched Mississippi is halting barges. Bloomberg, 27 November, accessed 15 February 2013. [Available online at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-27/drought-parched-mississippi-river-is-halting-barges.html.]

  • Boehlert, B., and Jaeger W. , 2010: Past and future water conflicts in the Upper Klamath Basin: An economic appraisal. Water Resour. Res., 46, W10518, doi:10.1029/2009WR007925.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Burke, E. J., Brown S. J. , and Christidis N. , 2006: Modeling the recent evolution of global drought and projections for the twenty-first century with the Hadley Centre climate model. J. Hydrometeor., 7, 1113–1125, doi:10.1175/JHM544.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Cameron, T., Shaw W. D. , Ragland S. E. , Callaway J. , and Keefe S. , 1996: Using actual and contingent behavior data with differing levels of time aggregation to model recreation demand. J. Agric. Resour. Econ., 21, 130–149.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Cayan, D. R., Das T. , Pierce D. W. , Barnett T. P. , Tyree M. , and Gershunov A. , 2010: Future dryness in the southwest US and the hydrology of the early 21st century drought. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 21 271–21 276, doi:10.1073/pnas.0912391107.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Deschenes, O., and Greenstone M. , 2007: The economic impacts of climate change: Evidence from agricultural output and random fluctuations in weather. Amer. Econ. Rev., 97, 354–385, doi:10.1257/aer.97.1.354.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Droogers, P., and Allen R. G. , 2002: Estimating reference evapotranspiration under inaccurate data conditions. Irrig. Drain. Syst., 16, 33–45, doi:10.1023/A:1015508322413.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Edwards, D. C., and McKee T. B. , 1997: Characteristics of 20th century drought in the United States at multiple time scales. Colorado State University Atmospheric Science Paper 634, Climatology Report 97-2, 155 pp. [Available online at http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/edwards.pdf.]

  • Eiswerth, M. E., Englin J. , Fadali E. , and Shaw D. , 2000: The value of water levels in water-based recreation: A pooled revealed preference/contingent behavior model. Water Resour. Res., 36, 1079–1086, doi:10.1029/1999WR900332.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Fadali, E., and Shaw D. , 1998: Can recreation values for a lake constitute a market for banked agricultural water? Contemp. Econ. Policy, 16, 433–441, doi:10.1111/j.1465-7287.1998.tb00531.x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Gonzalez, J., and Valdes J. B. , 2006: New drought frequency index: Definition and comparative performance analysis. Water Resour. Res., 42, W11421, doi:10.1029/2005WR004308.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Howitt, R., Medellin-Azuara J. , MacEwan D. , Lund J. , and Sumner D. , 2014. Economic analysis of the 2014 drought for California agriculture. University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences Tech. Rep., 20 pp. [Available online at https://watershed.ucdavis.edu/files/biblio/DroughtReport_23July2014_0.pdf.]

  • Jakus, P. M., Dowell P. , and Murray M. , 2000: The effect of fluctuating water levels on reservoir fishing. J. Agric. Resour. Econ., 25, 520–532.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Karl, T., and Knight R. , 1985: Atlas of Monthly Palmer Hydrological Drought Indices (1931–1983) for the Contiguous United States. Historical Climatology Series, Vol. 3–7, National Climatic Data Center, 319 pp.

  • Keyantash, J., and Dracup J. , 2002: The quantification of drought: An evaluation of drought indices. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 83, 1167–1180, doi:10.1175/1520-0477(2002)083<1191:TQODAE>2.3.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kirchhoff, S., Colby B. , and LaFrance J. , 1997: Evaluating the performance of benefit transfer: An empirical inquiry. J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 33, 75–93, doi:10.1006/jeem.1996.0981.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • McKee, T., Doesken N. , and Kleist J. , 1993: The relationship of drought frequency and duration to time scales. Proc. 9th Conf. on Applied Climatology, Boston, MA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 179–184.

  • Melillo, M., Richmond T. C. , and Yohe G. W. , Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 841 pp, doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.

  • Mendelsohn, R., Nordhaus W. , and Shaw D. , 1994: The impact of global warming on agriculture: A Ricardian analysis. Amer. Econ. Rev., 84, 753–771.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Monier, E., Gao X. , Scott J. , Sokolov A. , and Schlosser A. , 2015: A framework for modeling uncertainty in regional climate change. Climatic Change, 131, 51–66, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1112-5.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • NCDC, 2013: Billion-dollar weather and climate disasters: Table of events. Accessed 3 March 2014. [Available online at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events.]

  • NOAA, 2010: Climate of 2010—January U.S. Palmer drought indices. Accessed 10 February 2010. [Available online at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/prelim/drought/palmer.html.]

  • NWS, 2002: NWS economic statistics, June 2002. Accessed 10 March 2013. [Available online at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/com/files/nws_economic_statistics_06-2002.doc.]

  • Palmer, W., 1965: Meteorological drought. U.S. Department of Commerce Weather Bureau Research Paper 45, 58 pp. [Available online at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/docs/palmer.pdf.]

  • Palmer, W., 1968: Keeping track of crop moisture conditions, nationwide: The new crop moisture index. Weatherwise, 21, 156–161, doi:10.1080/00431672.1968.9932814.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Paltsev, S., Monier E. , Scott J. , Sokolov A. , Reilly J. , Gao X. , and Schlosser A. , 2015: Integrated economic and climate projections for impact assessment. Climatic Change, 131, 21–33, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0892-3.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Parsons, G. R., and Kealy M. J. , 1994: Benefits transfer in a random utility model of recreation. Water Resour. Res., 30, 2477–2484, doi:10.1029/94WR01047.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • PRISM Climate Group, 2012: PRISM climate data. Oregon State University PRISM Climate Group, accessed 13 September 2012. [Available online at http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/.]

  • Quiring, S., and Papakryiakou T. , 2003: An evaluation of agricultural drought indices for the Canadian prairies. Agric. For. Meteor., 118, 49–62, doi:10.1016/S0168-1923(03)00072-8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Schlenker, W., and Roberts M. , 2009: Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 106, 15 594–15 598, doi:10.1073/pnas.0906865106.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Schlenker, W., Hanemann W. M. , and Fisher A. , 2005: Will U.S. agriculture really benefit from global warming? Accounting for irrigation in the hedonic approach. Amer. Econ. Rev., 88, 113–125, doi:10.1257/0002828053828455.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Schlenker, W., Hanemann W. M. , and Fisher A. , 2006: The impact of global warming on U.S. agriculture: An econometric analysis of optimal growing conditions. Rev. Econ. Stat., 88, 113–125, doi:10.1162/rest.2006.88.1.113.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Strzepek, K., Yohe G. , Neumann J. , and Boehlert B. , 2010: Characterizing changes in drought risk for the United States from climate change. Environ. Res. Lett., 5, 044012, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/4/044012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Strzepek, K., and Coauthors, 2015: Benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation on the supply, management, and use of water resources in the United States. Climatic Change, 131, 127–141, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1279-9.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Svoboda, M., 2009: Applying the standardized precipitation index as a drought indicator. Mali Drought Monitoring Workshop, Bamako, Mali, National Drought Mitigation Center. [Available online at http://www.wamis.org/agm/meetings/amali09/J2_Svoboda-SPI.pdf.]

  • Thom, H., 1951: A frequency distribution for precipitation. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 32, 397.

  • Thom, H., 1966: Some methods of climatological analysis. WMO Tech. Note 81., 53 pp.

  • Vicente-Serrano, S. M., and Coauthors, 2012: Performance of drought indices for ecological, agricultural, and hydrological applications. Earth Interact., 16, 1–27, doi:10.1175/2012EI000434.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Waldhoff, S., and Coauthors, 2015: Overview of the special issue: A multi-model framework to achieve consistent evaluation of climate change impacts in the United States. Climatic Change, 131, 1–20, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1206-0.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Ward, F. A., 1987: Economics of water allocation to instream uses in a fully appropriated river basin: Evidence from a New Mexico wild river. Water Resour. Res., 23, 381–392, doi:10.1029/WR023i003p00381.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation