Thursday, January 15, 2026

 

Rethinking climate impacts through human wellbeing




International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis




A new study by IIASA researchers offers a pioneering way to understand how climate change affects people’s lives over the long term. Using a global model and the Years of Good Life (YoGL) metric, the research shows that today’s emissions shape future wellbeing, especially for younger generations.

Human wellbeing is increasingly recognized as a better benchmark for sustainable development than GDP. Yet, while GDP is losing its prominence as a measure of wellbeing, climate impacts are still mostly assessed in monetary terms, most notably through the social cost of carbon, which is based solely on economic damage. The study, titled “Wellbeing cost of carbon” and published in Global Sustainability, takes an important step toward measuring climate impacts in terms that matter directly to people by shifting the focus from economic output to human wellbeing itself.

Linking climate, society, and human wellbeing

Using a global systems model together with the Years of Good Life (YoGL) indicator developed at IIASA, the researchers show how climate change, economic development, and social conditions combined shape long-term human wellbeing. Years of Good Life measures how many years individuals can expect to live in good physical and cognitive health, above poverty, and with overall life satisfaction.

By explicitly modeling feedbacks between natural, human, and economic capital and Years of Good Life, the analysis provides the first quantitative estimation of the core equation of sustainability science using an empirically grounded and intuitive wellbeing metric, going well beyond earlier approaches that could not clearly trace how environmental change affects wellbeing over time.

Key results: up to 11.3 Years of Good Life at stake

The results show that strong climate action could increase individual wellbeing by up to 10.4 Years of Good Life on average, while high-emissions pathways could reduce lifetime wellbeing by as much as 11.3 years. Younger generations face the highest marginal wellbeing losses from today’s emissions, highlighting pronounced intergenerational inequities. The analysis also reveals gender differences, with men experiencing higher marginal wellbeing losses per unit of carbon emitted, despite women often having lower overall wellbeing levels.

“Our study demonstrates that wellbeing can be modeled in a forward-looking and integrated way, capturing the links between climate change, the economy, and social development,” says study author and IIASA Senior Research Scholar, Sibel Eker. “For policymakers, the approach offers a way to compare climate and development pathways, with human wellbeing – not just economic output – at the center of decision-making.”

“For the first time, we can quantify how changes in climate and other forms of natural, human or economic capital translate into gains or losses in human wellbeing across generations and genders. It is time to think about the wellbeing cost of carbon instead of focusing only on economic costs, because what ultimately matters is how today’s emissions shape the quality of life of future generations,” concludes IIASA Distinguished Emeritus Research Scholar and coauthor, Wolfgang Lutz.

Reference
Eker, S., Reiter, C., Liu, Q., Kuhn, M., Lutz, W. (2026). Wellbeing cost of carbon. Global Sustainability DOI: 10.1017/sus.2025.10042

 

About IIASA:
The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) is an international scientific institute that conducts research into the critical issues of global environmental, economic, technological, and social change that we face in the twenty-first century. Our findings provide valuable options to policymakers to shape the future of our changing world. IIASA is independent and funded by prestigious research funding agencies in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe.

Learning about public consensus on climate change does little to boost people’s support for action, study shows





University of Exeter




Providing accurate information about the climate crisis can help to correct misperceptions about how much public support exists for action.

 

However, simply showing that others support climate action does not, on its own, have a meaningful impact on people’s own beliefs or behavioural intentions, a new study based on data from Germany shows, challenging common expectations about the power of public consensus to drive climate action.

 

The study finds that learning about widespread public support for climate action policies can initially make people think such policies are more politically feasible and more likely to be implemented. However, these effects are small and short-lived, raising questions about how effective such communication strategies are in practice.

 

The data were collected in collaboration with YouGov in Germany in 2021 and include 2,801 respondents. The same people were surveyed twice, around two weeks apart. Some participants were shown information about how widespread public support for climate action actually is in Germany. Others were not shown this information.

 

Overall, people in Germany had a fairly accurate sense of how much public support exists for climate action. On average, they did not believe that only a small minority supports action to combat climate change. At the same time, some people underestimated how many others supported climate action and specific climate policies.

 

Among those who underestimated public support, the information shown in the study made a clear difference. When presented with evidence of how widespread support for climate action is, they updated their views about public opinion. This learning was not fleeting. It was still visible when the same people were surveyed again two weeks later.

 

Importantly, this learning was limited to perceptions of public opinion. Knowing that many others supported climate action did not change people’s own beliefs about climate change, such as whether human activity is the main cause, their personal preferences for climate policies, or their intentions to change their behaviour, for example using public transport instead of a car.

 

There was one partial exception. People who learned about broad public support initially found political climate action more feasible. For example, they were slightly more likely to think that policies such as taxing goods based on their CO₂ emissions could realistically be implemented. However, this effect faded by the follow-up survey.

 

The study, published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, was conducted within the Debunker Lab, led by Jason Reifler (University of Southampton; formerly University of Exeter). The research is led by Matthew Barnfield (Queen Mary University of London) and co-authored by Paula Szewach (Barcelona Supercomputing Center), Sabrina Stöckli (University of Bern), Florian Stoeckel (University of Exeter), Jack Thompson (University of Leeds), Joseph Phillips (Cardiff University), Benjamin Lyons (University of Utah), and Vittorio Mérola (Durham University).

 

Dr Barnfield said: “Learning how much consensus there is in support for policy action on climate change seems to durably increase people's perceptions of that consensus, even for policies that we didn't specifically tell them about. But that does not seem to have much effect on how much people support or even themselves adopt environmentally friendly actions. This finding might disappoint experts who have argued for this approach as a way to accelerate climate action in democracies.”

 

Professor Stoeckel added: “People do learn what others think on climate change, and that learning can persist. At the same time, our study shows clear limits to what can be expected from this strategy. Simply telling people that climate action is widely supported is likely not enough to change beliefs, preferences, or behaviour.”

 

 

 

Study finds ocean impacts nearly double economic cost of climate change



The “blue” social cost of carbon provides a more complete measure of the monetary harm caused by global climate damages




University of California - San Diego

King tides in San Diego, Calif. 

image: 

Kind tides impact the Mission Beach boardwalk in San Diego, Calif. in 2023.  Image: Scripps Institution of Oceangraphy/UC San Diego. 

view more 

Credit: Image: Scripps Institution of Oceangraphy/UC San Diego.




For the first time, a study from researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego integrates climate-related damages to the ocean into the social cost of carbon— a measure of economic harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions. 

When ocean damage from climate change, dubbed the “blue” social cost of carbon, is calculated, the study finds that the global cost of carbon dioxide emissions to society nearly doubles. Until now, the ocean was largely overlooked in the standard accounting of the social cost of carbon even though the degradation of coral reef ecosystems, economic losses from fisheries impacts and damage to coastal infrastructure are well documented and adversely impact millions around the globe.

“If we don't put a price tag on the harm that climate change causes to the ocean, it will be invisible to key decision makers,” said environmental economist Bernardo Bastien-Olvera, who led the study during a postdoctoral fellowship at Scripps Oceanography. “Until now, many of these variables in the ocean haven’t had a market value, so they have been absent from calculations. This study is the first to assign monetary-equivalent values to these overlooked ocean impacts.”

The research team’s findings were published January 15 in the journal Nature Climate Change. 

Social cost of carbon is considered a more accurate accounting of harm than the calculations commonly used as the basis of carbon credits or carbon offsets offered to travelers. These calculations have been used by state governments and organizations such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy to inform analyses of proposed policy actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Human-generated carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere cause damage by warming ocean temperatures, altering the chemistry of the oceanreducing the ocean’s ability to hold oxygen necessary for species survival while increasing the severity of extreme weather, as rising temperatures provide more energy to feed extreme storms. These changes are altering the distribution of species and damaging ecosystems like coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass beds and kelp forests. There are also impacts to infrastructure like ports, which can be damaged from increased flooding and storms.

Calculating how societies depend on oceans for trade, nutrition, leisure and more  

To develop the accounting, the study looked at straightforward market use values such as decreased fisheries revenue or diminished trade. It also accounted for non-market values such as health impacts of reduced nutrition availability from impacted fisheries and recreational opportunities at the ocean. Additionally, iIt considered intangibles such as the value of the inherent worth humans get from the enjoyment of ecosystems and biodiversity, which the researchers call non-use or existence value.

Researchers plugged the estimates into an economic model calibrated to varying greenhouse gas emission trajectories. Without ocean impacts included, the social cost of carbon is $51 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. When the model is run with ocean impacts, study authors calculated an additional $46.2 per ton of carbon dioxide, reaching $97.2 total per ton of carbon dioxide, a 91% increase. For a sense of scale, in 2024, global carbon dioxide emissions were estimated to be 41.6 billion tons, according to the Global Carbon Budget analysis — implying nearly $2 trillion in ocean-related damages associated with one year of global emissions, damages that are currently missing from standard climate cost estimates.

Overall, market damages are projected to be the largest cost to society, totaling global annual losses of $1.66 trillion in the year 2100. Damages in non-use values, the inherent worth we derive from enjoyment of ocean ecosystems, amount to $224 billion and non-market use values such as decreased nutrition from impacted fisheries adds up to $182 billion in annual losses. 

But Bastien-Olvera, now an assistant professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, notes that a dollar of market damage is not the same as a dollar of cultural loss. These benefits are not perfectly substitutable, meaning that losses in one category cannot be fully offset by gains in another, so each category of damage carries a different meaning for society.

How the “blue” social cost of carbon will be an important tool for environmental decision makers 

Study co-author Kate Ricke, a climate scientist and associate professor at Scripps Oceanography and the School of Global Policy and Strategy, notes that social cost of carbon is a tool used in cost-benefit analysis, which is important for environmental decision makers. Cost-benefit analysis is used by government agencies for policy design and by members of the private sector for risk management analysis and financial planning. 

“Protecting the environment can have high up-front costs, so we need methods for thinking about the trade-offs we are making as a society,” said Ricke, who led a 2018 study that estimated country-level contributions to the social cost of carbon. “There are things that people value and benefit from that aren’t easily monetized and the ocean is particularly challenging to assign monetary values. The blue social cost of carbon is a new framework to recognize these values.”

An unequal distribution of harm across the globe 

Study authors also found the distribution of impacts is highly unequal across the world, with islands and small economies being disproportionately affected. Given these areas' dependence on seafood for nutrition, they stand to suffer increased health impacts to their populations. The study accounted for how ocean warming reduces the availability of key nutrients in seafood — including calcium, omega-3 fatty acids, protein and iron. This loss in nutrients can be linked to increases in disease risk and additional deaths that could then be attributed to such nutrient losses. 

Bastien-Olvera said the study was only possible thanks to shared expertise from scientists across disciplines — fisheries experts, coral reef and mangrove researchers, biological oceanographers, and others. The hope now is that policymakers and industry will use this framework to support decision making. 

“The social cost of carbon can help you contextualize the costs of climate change,” said Bastien-Olvera. “When an industry emits a ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, as a society we are paying a cost. A company can use this number to inform cost-benefit analysis — what is the damage they will be causing society through increasing their emissions?”

The study was funded through the Scripps Institutional Postdoctoral Fellowship. Additional study authors include Octavio Aburto-Oropeza from Scripps Oceanography; Luke Brander from Leibniz University; William WL Cheung from the University of British Columbia; Johannes Emmerling, Francesco Granella and Massimo Tavoni from European Institute on Economics and the Environment; Chris M Free from UC Santa Barbara; and Jasper Verschuur from the University of Oxford. 

Read the full paper, “Accounting for Ocean Impacts Nearly Doubles the Social Cost of Carbon.” 


 
Mangroves 

Mangrove loss can lead to economic consequences as tracked in a new study. Image credit: Octavio Aburto/Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego. 

Credit

Image credit: Octavio Aburto/Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.

 

Disinfecting drinking water produces potentially toxic byproducts — new AI model is helping to identify them



The good news is they are easy to filter out — and experts say yes, you should try this at home




Stevens Institute of Technology

Tao Ye and Rabbi Sikder are discussing their research 

image: 

Tao Ye and Rabbi Sikder are discussing their research

view more 

Credit: Courtesy Stevens Institute of Technology





Hoboken, NJ., January 12, 2026 — Disinfecting drinking water prevents the spread of deadly waterborne diseases by killing infectious agents such as bacteria, viruses and parasites. Without disinfection, even clear-looking water can carry pathogens that can cause severe and even life-threatening illness, especially in children, older adults, and people with weakened immune systems. Before water disinfection processes were put in place, outbreaks of waterborne diseases such as cholera, typhoid, and dysentery routinely claimed lives, decimating cities and even countries. Disinfecting drinking water is one of the most important public health achievements in human history.

However, the chemicals commonly used to disinfect water, such as chlorine or chloramine, also react with organic matter, the tiny bits of dissolved organic carbon that is inherently present in water as it comes from natural sources such as rivers, lakes or aquifers. When these chemicals react with organic matter, they form byproducts that may be harmful to human health. Some of these disinfection byproducts, which scientists refer to as DBPs, have been implicated in certain cancers and reproductive issues. For example, DBPs like trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids have been linked to increased risks of bladder cancer as well as impaired fetal development.

The Environmental Protection Agency has standards for the safety levels of some of these byproducts present in the drinking water, but not for all, says Stevens Institute of Technology Assistant Professor Tao Ye, who uses AI to analyze environmental data to understand the complex interactions of various chemical compounds. “There are 11 such byproducts regulated by the EPA,” he explains. “However, so far research has identified several hundred more, which we don’t know much about — and they may be more toxic than the ones that are regulated.”

Although understanding how the chemistry of these compounds may affect human health is important, testing these compounds in laboratory conditions is challenging. “Traditional toxicity testing in the lab is often time-consuming, labor-intensive, and expensive, which limits how many disinfection byproducts can be evaluated,” Ye says. That’s where AI can help, he notes.  “AI and machine learning are fundamentally transforming this process by enabling rapid, scalable toxicity screening, allowing us to assess hundreds of compounds that would otherwise be impractical to test experimentally.”  

To speed up DBP research, Ye, his PhD student Rabbi Sikder, and their collaborator Peng Gao at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, built an AI model to help assess the disinfectant byproducts and their toxicity. 

First, researchers combed through scientific studies to find the toxicity data available from experimental testing of over 200 chemicals. Then, they trained the AI model on this data to predict potential toxicity for other chemicals. 

“We used the laboratory testing data reported in previous literature,” explains Sikder. “We collected those chemical names, their chemical structures, along with experimental exposure conditions and their corresponding toxicity values. We found toxicity values for 227 known chemicals and used them to build a machine learning predictive model to predict the toxicity for the unknown ones.”  

The model was able to predict the toxicity for 1163 byproducts of the cleaning process. The model also found that some of the byproducts’ potential toxicity ranged from 2 to 10 times higher than some of the chemicals that the EPA regulates, Sikder says. The team outlined their findings in the paper titled Multi-Endpoint Semi-Supervised Learning Identifies High- Priority Unregulated Disinfection Byproducts, published in the journal of the Environmental Science & Technology Letters on January 15, 2026. 

Does that mean that your tap water isn't safe to drink?  “Not at all,” Ye explains. Your average glass of tap water will never have all these harmful byproducts together. That is a total number of compounds that may theoretically form, depending on what organic matter is present in the water and what chemicals are used to clean it. In different parts of the world, water contains different organic matter and different chemicals are used to treat it, Ye stresses out. “What we are doing here is our due diligence to see what else may need to be regulated, depending on what’s in the water and what you use to clean it,” he says. “All in all, our tap water is safe to drink, and our research intends to make it even safer.” Sikder adds that now that the AI model exists and is available for use, other scientists can access it to further understand the chemistry of the DBPs.

For those who remain concerned, Ye shares his advice on how to remove the disinfectant byproducts from their tap water. “As researchers, we are always trying to do two things — advance the science and inform the public. The first thing in this case is understanding the mechanisms behind the formation of toxic compounds. And the second one is how to reduce these chemicals in our tap water, which you can do in two different ways. You can filter the water with various widely available household filters. Or you can boil it because when you boil it, these chemicals evaporate,” Ye says. “Both methods are easy to do at home.”
 

About Stevens Institute of Technology 

Stevens is a premier, private research university situated in Hoboken, New Jersey. Since our founding in 1870, technological innovation has been the hallmark of Stevens’ education and research. Within the university’s three schools and one college, more than 8,000 undergraduate and graduate students collaborate closely with faculty in an interdisciplinary, student-centric, entrepreneurial environment. Academic and research programs spanning business, computing, engineering, the arts and other disciplines actively advance the frontiers of science and leverage technology to confront our most pressing global challenges. The university continues to be consistently ranked among the nation’s leaders in career services, post-graduation salaries of alumni and return on tuition investment.