PESETA III: Climate change impacts on labour productivity
PESETA III: Climate change impacts on labour productivity
复制标题
PESETA III：气候变化对劳动生产率的影响
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Ibarreta
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Gosling;Jamal Zaherpour;D. Ibarreta
这项研究使用了五个描述劳动生产率和温度之间观察到的关系的影响模型，并利用高排放情景(RCP8.5)下的五个气候模型(即25个气候影响模型组合)的气候模型模拟，在整个欧洲范围内分别评估气候变化对室外和室内劳动生产率的影响。这是第一次使用多个影响模型和多个气候模型，并考虑与不发生适应相比，适应对降低影响的潜在影响。对本世纪末(2071-2100年)和近期(2021-2050年)的影响进行了估计，并与现在(1981-2010年)进行了比较。影响也是在缓解情景下估计的，其中全球平均变暖比工业化前高出2摄氏度。影响评估分别在有适应和无适应的情况下进行。有计划的适应是指根据美国职业安全与健康管理局的建议，在炎热时期考虑调整工作班次后对工作活动进行的调整--根据适应假设，所有劳动都发生在夜间，而不是白天。如果不减缓和适应气候变化，到本世纪末，几个南欧国家(保加利亚、希腊、意大利、马其顿、葡萄牙、西班牙和土耳其)的日均户外劳动生产率可能会比目前的水平下降约10%-15%。北欧国家的日均户外劳动生产率也可能出现下降，但降幅比南部国家小得多，约为2%-4%(丹麦、爱沙尼亚、芬兰、挪威和瑞典)。对于三个最敏感的影响模型，对室内劳动生产率的影响程度一般比对室外劳动生产率的影响低2-4个百分点，而对于两个最不敏感的影响模型，差异较小。预计气候变化对劳动生产率的影响程度存在不确定性，原因是：1)不同气候模型之间对气候的预测不同；2)使用不同的影响模型。这两个不确定因素都很重要。由于使用多个气候模型而产生的预测影响的范围与使用多个影响模型以及仅使用一个气候模型而产生的影响的范围相当。适应和缓解有可能大大减轻气候变化对整个欧洲劳动生产率下降的影响。对于一些国家来说，在高排放的情况下，对于一些气候影响模型组合，适应后的影响可能比不适应时低10个百分点左右(例如保加利亚、克罗地亚、希腊、意大利、西班牙和土耳其)。然而，与目前相比，这些国家每日平均户外劳动生产率的降幅可能仍在5%左右(在一个气候影响模型组合的情况下，希腊的降幅高达10%)。虽然从这项评估中可以清楚地看到适应的潜在好处，但重要的是要意识到与所采用的适应建模方法有关的注意事项。这些措施包括假设所有从事中等到繁重劳动的劳动力转移到夜间工作，承认夜间工作可能会对健康产生负面影响，以及由于照明能源需求和非上班时间更高的工资可能导致夜间工作成本上升。这种工作方式的改变是乐观的，但也不是不可信的，因为目前欧洲约有20%的工人是夜班工作。将全球变暖控制在2摄氏度以下(并假设没有适应)可以避免在没有缓解的情况下影响最大的欧洲国家(保加利亚、希腊、意大利、马其顿、葡萄牙、西班牙和土耳其)的相当大比例的影响。有了一些气候影响模型组合，在这些国家，与没有缓解的相比，劳动生产率的下降幅度可以降低10个百分点。
This study uses five impact models that describe observed relationships between labour productivity and temperature, with climate model simulations from five climate models under a high emissions scenario (RCP8.5), i.e. 25 climate-impact model combinations, to assess the impact of climate change on outdoor and indoor labour productivity respectively, at the national-scale, across Europe. This is the first assessment to use multiple impact models with multiple climate models and to consider the potential effects of adaptation on lowering the impacts relative to no adaptation taking place. Impacts are estimated for the end of century (2071-2100) and near-term (2021-2050), relative to present-day (1981-2010). Impacts are also estimated under a mitigation scenario, where global-mean warming is 2°C relative to pre-industrial. Impacts are assessed with and without adaptation respectively. Planned adaptation is represented as an adjustment in work activities following recommendations by the US Occupational Safety & Health Administration to consider the adjustment of work shifts during hot periods – all labour takes place at night instead of day-time, under the adaptation assumption. Without climate change mitigation and adaptation, daily average outdoor labour productivity could decline by around 10-15% from present-day levels in several southern European countries by the end of the century (Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Macedonia, Portugal, Spain and Turkey). Countries in northern Europe could also see declines in daily average outdoor labour productivity but the declines are considerably smaller than for the southern countries, at around 2-4% (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Norway and Sweden). The magnitude of impact on indoor labour productivity is generally 2-4 percentage points lower than for impacts on outdoor labour productivity, for the three most sensitive impact models, while for the two least sensitive impact models, the differences are smaller. There is uncertainty in the magnitude of projected climate change impacts on labour productivity due to: 1) differences in the projections of climate between different climate models; and 2) the use of different impact models. Both sources of uncertainty are significant. The range in projected impacts due to using multiple climate models is comparable to the range in impacts from using multiple impact models with only one climate model. Adaptation and mitigation have the potential to significantly lessen the impacts of climate change on declines in labour productivity across Europe. For some countries the impacts can be up to around 10 percentage points lower with adaptation than without, for some climate-impact model combinations, at the end of the century under high emissions (e.g. Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Spain and Turkey). However, the declines in daily average outdoor labour productivity could still be around 5% relative to present-day in these countries (and up to 10% for Greece, with one climate-impact model combination). Whilst the potential benefits of adaptation are clear from this assessment, it is important to be aware of the caveats associated with the adaptation modelling approach employed. These include an assumption of the entire work force engaged in moderate to heavy labour shifting to night-time working, acknowledgment that night-time working can be associated with negative health effects, and potentially higher costs of night-time working due to energy requirements for lighting and higher wages for working unsocial hours. Such a change in working practices is optimistic, but not implausible, since currently around 20% of workers in Europe are employed on shift work involving night work. Limiting global warming to below 2°C (and assuming no adaptation) could avoid a substantial proportion of impacts in the European countries that see the largest impacts without mitigation (Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Macedonia, Portugal, Spain and Turkey). With some climate-impact model combinations the declines in labour productivity can be up to 10 percentage points lower in these countries with mitigation when compared to without mitigation