Climate change: billions in costs for Switzerland by 2060

Context

TL;DR

• Climate-related damages are calculated up to 2060
• The comparison includes three climate scenarios
• Winter tourism will lose over 2 billion a year
• Hydropower could grow slightly

Key facts

• Horizon → until 2060
• Scenarios → three
• Risks analyzed → five
• Winter tourism → annual losses exceeding 2 billion francs
• Share of stations at risk → below 1’500-1’800 meters above sea level
• Hydropower → slight increase in production

Until 2060, climate change will cost Switzerland billions. This is the result of a study commissioned by the Confederation, which estimated the damage under three different scenarios: one based on stringent climate protection, a second with measures of intermediate intensity, and a third characterized by an almost unchecked rise in temperatures. Five climate risks were assessed for each scenario.

The risks considered

The calculation starts from the effects considered most relevant for the country: above all, heat waves and drought. Other phenomena examined include the shift of the snow line to higher elevations, heavy precipitation, storms and hail.

However, the study does not cover the full range of climate-related risks. Moreover, the researchers did not take the interdependencies between the various hazards into account in the models. If the effects reinforce one another, total costs for Switzerland could therefore be significantly higher than those calculated.

Tourism, agriculture and energy

Winter tourism will have to contend with annual losses exceeding two billion francs until 2060. According to the study, ski resorts located below 1’500-1’800 meters above sea level will eventually have to close because they will not have enough snow, even under the most favorable climate scenario. Skiers may be accommodated at higher-altitude resorts, but adaptation will entail high costs in Alpine regions, including stabilizing cable-car stations and installing additional snowmaking systems.

For agriculture, the outlook is more favorable, but only if there is enough water and investment is made in irrigation. Hydropower production, on the other hand, could benefit slightly: less snowfall and more rain are expected in winter, despite more frequent periods of drought, especially in summer. Power plants will have to manage intense precipitation. The research thus indicates where it is worth investing in adaptation and where, as in lower-altitude ski resorts, investment does not offer the same prospects.

Operational details

The practical value of the research lies not only in the sum of the damages, but in the different exposure of the sectors. The estimates show that climate change does not have the same effect throughout the Swiss economy: winter tourism faces high losses, agriculture can contain damages provided one specific condition is met, and hydropower may record a slight overall increase. For anyone assessing an investment, this difference matters more than a single national figure.

A map for adaptation

In winter tourism, adaptation has a very concrete limit. Higher-altitude locations can welcome skiers, but stabilizing cable-car stations and adding snowmaking systems entails high costs, especially in Alpine regions. Lower-altitude resorts are instead identified by the study as cases in which investment in adaptation does not offer the same outlook. Location therefore becomes a decisive element in the assessment.

For agriculture, the favorable outcome remains tied to water availability. Irrigation can make it possible to contain economic damages, but the research does not present this outcome as a general go-ahead. The stated condition is precise and must remain central to any interpretation of the data.

Hydropower also shows a balance between benefits and costs. The slight overall increase in production comes alongside more frequent summer droughts and the need to manage intense precipitation. The positive balance therefore does not eliminate the investments required.

Caution is needed for all scenarios. Since interdependencies between hazards were not modeled, the risks could reinforce one another and push overall costs beyond the estimates. The comparison therefore serves to identify where and how much to invest, not to set a definitive limit on losses.

Key points

How to use the estimates

The study can become a working framework for those who, in Switzerland, need to assess climate risks without assigning the same response to every sector. The process starts from the hazards measured by the research and keeps the conditions indicated for each activity separate.

Four steps

1. Isolate the risk. Start with the five hazards analyzed: heat waves and droughts, rising snowline, heavy precipitation, storms and hail. The first check is to understand which of these elements concerns the sector being examined.

2. Compare the scenarios. Read the same sector across the three scenarios outlined by the study: rigorous climate protection, moderate interventions or a rise in temperatures almost without restraint. The comparison avoids basing the assessment on a single outcome.

3. Match the measure to the condition. In winter tourism, elevation and snow determine the outlook for resorts; in agriculture, irrigation requires sufficient water; in hydropower, managing heavy precipitation remains necessary even with a slight increase in production.

4. Consider combined risks. The calculation does not include interdependencies among the hazards. Every assessment must therefore leave open the possibility that the effects may reinforce one another and that costs may be higher than estimated.

This sequence makes it possible to distinguish between an adaptation indicated by the research and an expense that does not offer the same outlook. It also helps avoid reading the agricultural result as an unconditional guarantee or hydropower growth as an absence of costs.

The explicit horizon remains 2060. Therefore, the comparison should be kept within this period and linked to the chosen scenario. The operational questions are simple: which risk is being assessed, which measure addresses it, which condition must be present and which cross-effects remain outside the calculation?

To complement the analysis of climate costs with a look at everyday expenses, consult costo della vita in Svizzera.

Source: rsi.ch