McKinsey analyzes the natural risks and socio-economic impacts of climate change
On January 15, 2020, the McKinsey Global Institute (McKinsey Global Institute) released a report entitled "Climate risk and response: natural disasters and socio-economic impacts" (Climate Risk and Response:Physical Hazards and Socioeconomic Impacts), which analyzes how the changing climate will affect the global socio-economic system over the next 30 years.
The report links climate models to economic forecasts and studies nine cases that illustrate exposure to extreme climate change and near thresholds. The report also analyzes the potential socio-economic impacts of 105 countries through geospatial assessments.
The main conclusions include:
one
Seven remarkable characteristics of natural risks of climate change
The natural risks caused by climate change already exist and are increasing, showing seven distinct characteristics:
(1) growth: in the nine cases studied, the natural risk level of climate change will increase by 2030 and 2050. By 2050, the socio-economic impact will be about 2 to 20 times higher than it is today. Even if some countries reap some benefits (for example, agricultural production is expected to increase in countries such as Canada), an overall analysis of countries around the world shows that the natural risks of climate change will increase.
(2) Spatial differentiation: climate hazards often occur locally. Therefore, there is a need to understand the direct impact of the natural risks of climate change in a geographical context, and there are differences between and within countries.
(3) unsteady: as global warming continues, the natural risks of climate change are constantly changing or unsteady. Due to the physical inertia of the geophysical system, further warming in the next 10 years will be "locked". Only by achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions can the risk of further warming be prevented. In addition, considering the thermal inertia of the earth system, a certain degree of warming may occur after reaching net zero emission.
(4) Nonlinearity: when the climate change disaster exceeds the threshold, its socio-economic impact is likely to spread in a non-linear manner, and the affected natural, man-made or ecosystem will not function properly, collapse or even stop functioning completely.
(v) systemic: although the direct impact of climate change is local, it can have a knock-on effect throughout the region and sectors through interrelated socio-economic and financial systems.
(VI) regressive: in the case study, the poorest communities and populations are usually the most vulnerable. Climate risks can cause spatial differences, benefiting some areas while hurting others.
(VII) inadequate preparedness: although companies and communities have been working to reduce climate risks, the pace and scale of adaptation still need to be significantly increased to cope with rising levels of natural climate risks. The adaptation process can lead to rising costs and difficult choices, including whether to invest in strengthening or relocating people and assets.
two
Climate change has had a substantial impact in all regions of the world
Since 1880, the temperature of the earth has risen by an average of about 1.1 ℃. Satellite observations and observations from hundreds of thousands of independent weather stations around the world have confirmed this, and the rapid reduction of the earth's surface ice sheet provides further evidence. The rate of warming is at least an order of magnitude faster than the paleoclimate record of the past 65 million years.
The number and size of the affected areas are increasing. It will inevitably heat up further in the next 10 years and probably after that. With the increase of global average temperature, climate models show that global climate disasters are increasing. Further warming will continue to increase the frequency and severity of climate disasters in the short term, and further aggravate long-term climate disasters.
three
Social economy affects non-linear growth and produces a chain reaction
Climate change has had a measurable impact on the social economy from five aspects: livability and workability, food system, physical assets, infrastructure services and natural capital. the results of the analysis of a series of socio-economic impacts caused by climate disasters show that the actual risks brought by climate change are increasing in a non-linear manner. The natural effects of climate change spread in various regions, and climate disasters and their impacts are becoming more and more intense in the region. To date the increase in the direct impact of climate disasters is mainly due to increased exposure to disasters rather than an increase in the average intensity of disasters. In the future, the intensification of disasters may have a greater impact.
four
The global socio-economic impact is likely to be great
The report assesses possible climate natural disasters in 105 countries. By 2030, it is expected that the human, material and natural capital of 105 countries will be affected by at least one major type of disaster. The intensification of climate disasters could kill millions of people and put trillions of dollars of economic activity and global natural capital at risk. Increased cross-regional climate hazards will bring hitherto unaffected areas into new risk areas, including:
The main results are as follows: (1) by 2050, under the typical concentration path (RCP 8.5) scenario, the population of areas with fatal heat wave events will increase from zero to 700-1.2 billion. As a result of exposure to extreme high temperatures, the average proportion of annual loss of effective outdoor working time worldwide is likely to increase from 10% at present to 10% to 15% by 2030 and to 15% to 20% by 2050.
(II) the food system is expected to show a trend of increasing volatility in global agricultural production. The likelihood of a 10% or more annual reduction in wheat, corn, soybeans and rice is expected to increase from 6% to 20% by 2050. In a given year, the likelihood of an increase of 10% or more in annual production is expected to increase from 1% to 6%.
(III) assets may be damaged or infrastructure services may be disrupted by various disasters, including floods, forest fires, hurricanes and heat waves. It is estimated that the capital damage caused by river floods is likely to double its current level by 2030 and quadruple by 2050.
(4) in some parts of the world, biological communities may change. Compared with 1901-1925, about 25% of the land has undergone a change in climate type. By 2050, that number is expected to increase to 45%.
five
Countries with lower per capita GDP usually face greater risks.
Although all countries are affected by climate change, the poorest countries may face more threats. Because the climate of these countries tends to be close to dangerous thresholds and rely more on outdoor work and natural capital, there is a lack of financial means for rapid adaptation. The workability index (the proportion of annual effective outdoor working hours lost due to extreme high temperatures and extreme precipitation) shows that the average risk of the top four countries in terms of GDP per capita increased by about 1% by 1.3% by 2050, while the average risk faced by the last one by 10%. Fatal heatwave events have little correlation with per capita GDP, but the worst affected countries (such as Bangladesh, India and Pakistan) have relatively low levels of GDP per capita.
six
Decision maker's suggestion
In the face of these challenges, decision makers and business leaders will need to use the right tools, analysis, processes and governance to correctly assess climate risks, adapt to unchangeable risks, and reduce carbon emissions to avoid further risk accumulation.
(1) incorporate climate risk into decision-making. Decisions need to take into account the natural risks and economic and social impacts of climate change. For companies, this means considering climate factors in capital allocation, product or service development, and supply chain management. For cities, paying attention to climate will become the key to urban planning decision-making. In addition, comprehensive risk management strategies need to be assessed, including transitional and liability risks, as well as the interaction betwee
About the Creator
Avalanches Kill Five Off-Piste Skiers in the Austrian Alps
The Austrian Alps are often portrayed as a winter paradise — a place of pristine white slopes, thrilling descents, and breathtaking mountain views. Every year, thousands of skiers and snowboarders travel from across the world to experience Austria’s famous alpine resorts. But over the weekend, that dream turned into a nightmare when five off-piste skiers lost their lives in two separate avalanche incidents, once again reminding the world that nature can be as unforgiving as it is beautiful. The deadly avalanches struck the Salzburg region, one of Austria’s most popular winter sports areas, despite clear warnings about dangerous snow conditions. As rescue teams worked tirelessly in freezing temperatures, the tragedy raised serious questions about off-piste skiing, risk awareness, and the limits of human control in extreme environments. What Happened in the Austrian Alps? According to Austrian authorities, the fatal incidents occurred on Saturday in two different locations within the Salzburg Alps. The first and deadliest avalanche struck a group of off-piste skiers in the Gastein Valley. A large mass of snow broke loose on a steep slope, sweeping through the area and burying multiple people. Four skiers were killed, while two others were injured, one of them critically. One person in the group managed to escape without injuries. Roughly 90 minutes earlier, a separate avalanche occurred near Bad Hofgastein, another well-known alpine destination. In that incident, a female skier was buried under snow at an altitude of around 2,200 meters. Despite rapid rescue efforts, she did not survive, bringing the death toll to five. Emergency services responded immediately, deploying multiple rescue helicopters, mountain rescue teams, search dogs, and medical personnel. However, avalanches move with terrifying speed, often leaving rescuers with only minutes to locate victims before survival chances drop dramatically. Avalanche Warnings Were Already in Place One of the most troubling aspects of this tragedy is that avalanche warnings had already been issued across much of the Austrian Alps. In the days leading up to the weekend, heavy snowfall combined with shifting temperatures created unstable snow layers. Avalanche experts warned that conditions were particularly dangerous, especially in ungroomed and off-piste areas. Some regions were placed under high avalanche risk levels, signaling that even experienced skiers could trigger deadly slides. Local mountain rescue officials later emphasized that the danger was well known. They described the incident as a painful reminder that avalanche bulletins are not theoretical — they exist to save lives. The Risk of Off-Piste Skiing Off-piste skiing, sometimes called backcountry skiing, has grown increasingly popular in recent years. Many skiers are drawn to untouched snow, quieter slopes, and the thrill of adventure beyond resort boundaries. But unlike marked ski runs, off-piste terrain is not controlled or secured against avalanches. Ski resorts routinely use explosives and monitoring systems to reduce avalanche risk on official slopes. Outside those boundaries, however, skiers are fully exposed to natural conditions. Snowpack stability can change suddenly due to wind, temperature shifts, or the weight of a single skier. Even with modern equipment like avalanche beacons and airbags, survival is never guaranteed. Once a person is buried, compacted snow can harden quickly, making self-rescue nearly impossible. A Pattern of Tragedy Across the Alps Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. Avalanche fatalities occur every winter across Europe’s mountain regions, and this season has already seen multiple deadly events. Earlier in the week, a 13-year-old boy was killed in an avalanche at another Austrian resort. In separate incidents, skiers have died in Tyrol, Switzerland, and France, all during periods of elevated avalanche risk. Austria alone records an average of around 20 avalanche-related deaths each year, depending on snow conditions and winter tourism levels. Experts warn that climate change may further complicate the issue by creating more unpredictable weather patterns and unstable snowpacks. Rescue Efforts and Emotional Toll Mountain rescue teams are highly trained and deeply committed, but avalanches remain one of the most challenging emergencies they face. In the Salzburg incidents, rescuers worked under intense pressure, racing against time and extreme weather. Beyond the physical danger, such events take an enormous emotional toll on rescuers, local communities, and families of the victims. Alpine towns rely heavily on tourism, and tragedies like this cast a long shadow over what should be a joyful winter season. Authorities have expressed condolences while also urging visitors to reflect seriously on the risks involved in off-piste activities. What Can Be Learned from This Tragedy? While no lesson can undo the loss of five lives, experts consistently highlight several key points: Respect avalanche warnings and bulletins These alerts are based on scientific analysis and real-time data, not guesswork. Understand that experience does not equal immunity Even skilled skiers can misjudge conditions. Stick to groomed slopes during high-risk periods Official ski runs are actively monitored and controlled. Avoid peer pressure and “powder fever” The desire for untouched snow can cloud judgment. Ultimately, the mountains will always involve risk — but informed decisions can mean the difference between life and death. A Sobering Reminder from the Mountains The Austrian Alps remain one of the world’s most spectacular winter destinations. Yet, as this heartbreaking weekend shows, they demand humility and respect. Nature does not negotiate, and it does not forgive recklessness. As investigations continue and families mourn their loved ones, the tragedy serves as a sobering reminder: adventure should never come at the cost of ignoring clear danger. For skiers and snowboarders everywhere, the message is painfully clear — no descent is worth a life.
By Muhammad Hassanabout 20 hours ago in Earth
Inside Trump's $11 Billion Health Plan to Replace “Neo-Colonial” USAID
In the landscape of global health aid, few proposals have stirred as much debate as former President Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to restructure American assistance abroad. Dubbed an $11 billion health initiative aimed at replacing USAID’s current framework, the plan seeks to pivot away from what Trump and his allies have criticized as the “neo-colonial” approach of U.S. foreign aid. While the plan promises greater efficiency and impact, experts are split on whether it is a practical solution or a politically driven gamble. Trump’s Critique of USAID The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a central pillar of American foreign assistance, distributing billions in aid annually to address health crises, food insecurity, and development challenges worldwide. However, Trump’s administration and its supporters have often described USAID’s approach as bureaucratic, inefficient, and reflective of a “neo-colonial” mindset. In public statements, Trump argued that the U.S. was spending taxpayer dollars on programs that benefited foreign governments or contractors more than the intended local communities. Critics of the plan say that while USAID has flaws—as any large bureaucracy does—its extensive networks and decades of experience provide an unmatched capacity to deliver aid efficiently and safely. The Core of the $11 Billion Proposal At the heart of Trump’s proposal is an $11 billion fund designed to consolidate, modernize, and streamline U.S. health aid. Unlike the traditional USAID model, which relies heavily on long-term partnerships with governments and NGOs, the new plan emphasizes: Direct Impact Funding: Allocating resources to frontline health workers and local initiatives rather than intermediaries. Data-Driven Investments: Using real-time health data to target outbreaks and crises more efficiently. Private Sector Partnerships: Leveraging U.S. pharmaceutical companies, tech firms, and healthcare startups to deliver vaccines, treatments, and medical infrastructure. Shorter Program Cycles: Moving away from multi-year funding commitments in favor of more flexible, results-oriented programs. Proponents argue that this approach could reduce bureaucratic overhead and ensure U.S. aid reaches communities faster. By “cutting out the middlemen,” Trump supporters claim, America can avoid the pitfalls of slow-moving aid programs that sometimes fail to adapt to crises. Reactions from the Global Health Community Global health experts, however, have expressed concern about both the logistics and philosophy of the plan. Dr. Melissa Ortega, a senior researcher at the Global Health Policy Institute, explained, “The idea of bypassing established structures like USAID may sound appealing on paper, but in practice, it risks undermining decades of institutional knowledge. Health systems are complex, and short-term projects cannot replace long-term capacity building.” Some critics have also questioned the characterization of USAID as “neo-colonial.” While U.S. foreign aid has historically been tied to geopolitical interests, many programs today are designed collaboratively with recipient countries and local organizations. Reducing oversight could unintentionally increase the risk of misuse, corruption, or health inequities. On the other hand, supporters of Trump’s plan point to examples of inefficiency in USAID programs, citing cases where aid was delayed or mismanaged. By introducing more direct funding models, they argue, U.S. taxpayer dollars could achieve a higher “return on health outcomes.” Political Implications Trump’s health aid overhaul proposal is not just about international development—it is also deeply political. Framing USAID as a “neo-colonial” institution resonates with a populist narrative that America should prioritize its own citizens and assert greater control over how taxpayer money is spent abroad. Domestically, the $11 billion plan faces scrutiny from Congress. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether dismantling USAID’s systems could destabilize ongoing health programs in countries where the U.S. has long-term commitments. The potential impact on global health security—including the fight against pandemics like COVID-19—adds another layer of concern. Internationally, U.S. allies and partner nations are watching closely. Sudden shifts in aid delivery could disrupt health programs in low- and middle-income countries, many of which rely on predictable funding cycles to maintain vaccination campaigns, maternal health services, and disease surveillance. Possible Benefits and Risks If executed carefully, the Trump-backed model could bring several benefits: Faster Response Times: Direct funding could accelerate delivery of vaccines, treatments, and emergency support. Innovation Boost: By partnering with private sector companies, the plan could accelerate development of new health technologies. Accountability: With performance-based metrics, the plan may better measure the impact of U.S. aid. However, the risks are equally significant: Disruption of Existing Programs: Abrupt changes could destabilize ongoing health projects. Loss of Expertise: USAID’s decades of experience in navigating local governance, supply chains, and community engagement may be hard to replace. Geopolitical Fallout: Allies accustomed to collaborating with USAID might see the move as destabilizing, reducing cooperation on global health initiatives. Looking Ahead As Trump and his allies continue to advocate for this $11 billion overhaul, the debate over the future of U.S. health aid is intensifying. Proponents view it as a necessary modernization of an outdated system, while critics fear it could undercut decades of carefully built infrastructure and global partnerships. Ultimately, the success of this plan will hinge on its ability to balance efficiency with stability, innovation with oversight, and political objectives with humanitarian needs. For now, the proposal remains controversial, representing a dramatic departure from traditional approaches to U.S. foreign aid. Whether it will reshape global health for the better—or simply create more uncertainty—remains to be seen. In the end, the Trump health plan is as much about ideology as it is about dollars. It challenges the conventional wisdom of international development and asks whether a more streamlined, results-focused approach can truly replace a system built over decades. As the world watches, the stakes could not be higher: the future of U.S. global health aid—and the lives it touches—hangs in the balance.
By Muhammad Hassan5 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.