{
  "id": 14968537,
  "title": "The Ambiguous Costs of Climate Change",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/16/the-ambiguous-costs-of-climate-change",
  "topic": "science",
  "section": "Science",
  "published": "2026-10-16T13:28:13.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Eos",
    "slug": "eos",
    "url": "https://eos.org/research-spotlights/the-ambiguous-costs-of-climate-change"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Determining the financial impact of climate change is a complex task, primarily due to the unpredictable nature of extreme weather events and the limitations of current observations and climate models. Researchers attempt to estimate these costs by comparing real-world extreme events to hypothetical scenarios where climate change was not a factor. This method, known as extreme event impact attribution (EEIA), attempts to quantify the damages and costs linked to human-induced climate change. However, there are two primary approaches used within EEIA: frequency-change and intensity-change. The frequency-change approach focuses on how likely an event became due to climate change, while the intensity-change approach assesses how much more damaging the event was as a result. These two methods can yield dramatically different estimates of climate change costs. For instance, Hurricane Harvey in 2017 resulted in around $90 billion in damages. The frequency-change method suggested that 75% of these costs could be attributed to climate change, whereas the intensity-change method estimated only 15%. When the two methods produce such contrasting results, it raises questions about the reliability and validity of the techniques. To address this issue, researchers introduce the consistency framework. A method is deemed consistent if, when applied to multiple events over time, the total climate change costs calculated by EEIA align with the actual excess costs incurred. Both frequency-change and intensity-change approaches can be consistent, meaning that both methods can be valid. Despite this, the authors emphasize that the inherent ambiguity in estimating individual event costs persists. They acknowledge that no technical advancements or perfect knowledge of climate and societal factors can eliminate this ambiguity, which may restrict EEIA's effectiveness in guiding adaptation strategies, recovery efforts, or legal proceedings.",
  "summary": "To put a price tag on climate change, some approaches focus on whether it made an event more likely, whereas others focus on whether it made an event more severe and damaging. A new study examines the validity of both approaches.",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}