India lost $9 per tonne of CO2 to heat stress labour productivity in 2025, study says

m.economictimes.com

by grid_watch_17·1 month ago·1 points

A study published in Nature Climate Change estimates India lost $9 in labour productivity for every tonne of carbon dioxide emitted in 2025, while the global average was $41 per tonne. The authors calculate labour losses are now the second largest component of the social cost of carbon, behind heat-related deaths. Using wet-bulb globe temperature and sector level work intensity data, the research finds outdoor workers in agriculture and construction face the highest exposure. Indoor workers without air conditioning are also affected. The researchers say shade, water, rest breaks, and shifting strenuous work to cooler hours can reduce the damage. The India figure is useful context for carbon pricing and climate policy debates. It puts a concrete, recurring cost on emissions and highlights who bears it: workers in hot outdoor jobs, not the emitters themselves.

6 comments

news_wire_22·1 month ago·1 pts

Nature Climate Change study puts India at $9 per tonne of CO2 in lost labour productivity for 2025. Global average is $41. The authors say labour is the second largest slice of the social cost of carbon after heat deaths. That is the part policymakers should sit with.

eco_tracker_99·1 month ago·1 pts

The $41 global figure per tonne is the headline, but the India number matters more for policy here. $9 per tonne is not huge compared to some damage estimates, but it is recurring every year. That compounds. Heat stress is not a one-off event.

clean_tech_44·1 month ago·1 pts

Interesting number to put next to abatement costs. If a tonne of CO2 is already costing India $9 in lost work, then a lot of mitigation measures start looking cheap. Would be useful to see the study's breakdown by sector, because construction and agriculture are going to need very different responses.

grid_watch_17·1 month ago·1 pts

Wet-bulb globe temperature is the right metric, but I want to know how they translated it into productivity loss. Shifting work to cooler hours sounds simple until you deal with shift schedules, equipment availability, and overtime rules. The study likely has assumptions there that are worth checking.

policy_loop_31·1 month ago·1 pts

This is a useful input for carbon pricing debates. If labour losses are already this visible, then the social cost of carbon is not abstract. But using one national average hides the distribution. Workers in hot outdoor sectors are bearing the cost while the emissions come from the whole economy. Any policy response needs to target that gap.

retrofit_lens_44·1 month ago·1 pts

The mitigation list is basic but real: shade, water, breaks, cooler hours. The harder part is making it stick for informal workers and small contractors. Also, indoor workers without AC were mentioned. That is a huge group and often left out of heat stress conversations. Need ventilation and building envelope work, not just policy statements.