research paper on environmental toxicology

The toxicology of climate change: environmental contaminants in a warming world

Affiliation.

• 1 Integrated Toxicology and Environmental Health Program, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
• PMID: 19375165
• DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2009.02.006

Climate change induced by anthropogenic warming of the earth's atmosphere is a daunting problem. This review examines one of the consequences of climate change that has only recently attracted attention: namely, the effects of climate change on the environmental distribution and toxicity of chemical pollutants. A review was undertaken of the scientific literature (original research articles, reviews, government and intergovernmental reports) focusing on the interactions of toxicants with the environmental parameters, temperature, precipitation, and salinity, as altered by climate change. Three broad classes of chemical toxicants of global significance were the focus: air pollutants, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including some organochlorine pesticides, and other classes of pesticides. Generally, increases in temperature will enhance the toxicity of contaminants and increase concentrations of tropospheric ozone regionally, but will also likely increase rates of chemical degradation. While further research is needed, climate change coupled with air pollutant exposures may have potentially serious adverse consequences for human health in urban and polluted regions. Climate change producing alterations in: food webs, lipid dynamics, ice and snow melt, and organic carbon cycling could result in increased POP levels in water, soil, and biota. There is also compelling evidence that increasing temperatures could be deleterious to pollutant-exposed wildlife. For example, elevated water temperatures may alter the biotransformation of contaminants to more bioactive metabolites and impair homeostasis. The complex interactions between climate change and pollutants may be particularly problematic for species living at the edge of their physiological tolerance range where acclimation capacity may be limited. In addition to temperature increases, regional precipitation patterns are projected to be altered with climate change. Regions subject to decreases in precipitation may experience enhanced volatilization of POPs and pesticides to the atmosphere. Reduced precipitation will also increase air pollution in urbanized regions resulting in negative health effects, which may be exacerbated by temperature increases. Regions subject to increased precipitation will have lower levels of air pollution, but will likely experience enhanced surface deposition of airborne POPs and increased run-off of pesticides. Moreover, increases in the intensity and frequency of storm events linked to climate change could lead to more severe episodes of chemical contamination of water bodies and surrounding watersheds. Changes in salinity may affect aquatic organisms as an independent stressor as well as by altering the bioavailability and in some instances increasing the toxicity of chemicals. A paramount issue will be to identify species and populations especially vulnerable to climate-pollutant interactions, in the context of the many other physical, chemical, and biological stressors that will be altered with climate change. Moreover, it will be important to predict tipping points that might trigger or accelerate synergistic interactions between climate change and contaminant exposures.

Publication types

• Research Support, N.I.H., Intramural
• Air Pollutants / toxicity
• Environmental Exposure
• Environmental Pollution*
• Greenhouse Effect*
• Hypersensitivity / epidemiology
• Organic Chemicals / toxicity
• Particulate Matter / toxicity
• Pesticides / toxicity
• Pulmonary Heart Disease / epidemiology
• Air Pollutants
• Organic Chemicals
• Particulate Matter

Grants and funding

• Intramural NIH HHS/United States

New Frontiers in Environmental Toxicology pp 79–90 Cite as

Environmental Nanotoxicology: Features, Application, and Characterization

• Rupesh Kumar Basniwal 2 ,
• Anuj Ranjan 3 &
• Abhishek Chauhan 3  
• First Online: 22 September 2021

404 Accesses

Currently, environmental nanotoxicology is a new and growing field. It deals with the toxicological impact of nanoparticles (NPs) on the environment. As we are not much aware of these nanoparticles, they are continuously adding to the environment through various routes like food, cosmetics, food packaging materials, contaminated water, etc. The toxicity of nanoparticles depends on its size, structural properties, concentrations, and environmental factors like temperature, pH, ionic strength, salinity, and organic matter. Assessing the state of knowledge about the toxicity of these nanoparticles is important for the environment and for human welfare. In this chapter, we have discussed features, characterization, applications, environmental routes for dispersion, nanotoxicity, ecotoxicity, and genotoxicity of nanomaterials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Ahamed M, Karns M, Goodson M, Rowe J, Hussain SM, Schlager JJ, Hong Y. DNA damage response to different surface chemistry of silver nanoparticles in mammalian cells. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 2008;233(3):404–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2008.09.015 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

AshaRani, PV, Wu YL, Gong Z, Valiyaveettil S. Toxicity of silver nanoparticles in zebrafish models. Nanotechnology. 2008;19(25):279–290. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/19/255102 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Auffan M, Decome L, Rose J, Orsiere T, DeMeo M, Briois V, Chaneac C, Olivi L, BergeLefranc JL, Botta A, Wiesner MR, Bottero JY. In vitro interactions between DMSA-coated maghemite nanoparticles and human fibroblasts: a physiological and cyto-genotoxical study. Environmental Science and Technology. 2006;40(14):4367–4373. https://doi.org/10.1021/es060691k .

Azizian J, Tahermansouri H, Biazar E, Heidari S, Chobfrosh Khoei D. Functionalization of carboxylated multiwall nanotubes with imidazole derivatives and their toxicity investigations. Inter J Nanomed. 2010;5: 907–914.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Baun A, Sorensen SN, Rasmussen RF, Hartmann NB, Koch CB. Toxicity and bioaccumulation of xenobiotic organic compounds in the presence of aqueous suspensions of aggregates. Aquatic Toxicology. 2008;86(13):379–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2007.11.019 .

Borm PJA. Particle toxicology: from coal mining to nanotechnology. Inhal Toxicol. 2002;14:311–324.

Butterfield DA, Kanski J. Brain protein oxidation in agerelated neurodegenerative disorders that are associated with aggregate proteins. Mechanisms of Ageing and Development. 2011;122(9):945–962. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-6374(01)00249-4 .

Colvin VL. The potential environmental impact of engineered nanomaterials. Nat Biotechnol. 2003;21:1166–1170. 2.

De Volder MFL, Tawfick SH, Ray H, Baughman RH, Hart AJ. Carbon nanotubes: present and future commercial applications. Science. 2013; 339(6119):535–539. [PubMed: 23372006]

Evans MD, Dizdaroglu M, Cooke MS. Oxidative DNA damage and disease: induction, repair and significance. Mutation Research. 2004;567(1):1–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2003.11.001 .

Farre M, Gajda-Schrantz K, Kantiani L, Barcelo D. Ecotoxicology and analysis of nanomaterials in the aquatic. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. 2009;393(1):81– 95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-008-2458-1 .

Gaiser BK, Biswas A, Rosenkranz P, Jepson MA, Lead JR, Stone V, Tyler CR, Fernandes TF. Effects of silver and cerium dioxide micro- and nano-sized particles on Daphnia magna. Journal of Environmental Monitoring. 2011;13:1227–1235. https://doi.org/10.1039/c1em10060b .

Garcia-Alonso J, Khan FR, Misra SK, Turmaine M, Smith BD, Rainbow PS, Luoma SN, Valsami-Jones E. Cellular internalization of silver nanoparticles in gut epithelia of the estuarine polychaete Nereis diversicolor. Environmental Science and Technology. 2011;45:4630–4636. https://doi.org/10.1021/es2005122 .

Gilbert B, Lu G, Kim CS. Stable cluster formation in aqueous suspensions of iron oxyhydroxide nanoparticles. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science. 2007;313(1):152– 159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2007.04.038 .

Gurr JR, Wang AS, Chen CH, Jan KY. Ultrafine titanium dioxide particles in the absence of photoactivation can induce oxidative damage to human bronchial epithelial cells. Toxicology. 2005;213:66–73.

Heinlaan M, Kahru A, Kasemets K, Arbeille B, Prensier G, Dubourguier H-C. Changes in the Daphnia magna midgut upon ingestion of copper oxide nanoparticles: a transmission electron microscopy study. Water Research. 2011;45:179–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.08.026 .

Holsapple MP, Farland WH, Landry TD, et al. Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, part II: Toxicological and safety evaluation of nanomaterials, current challenges and data needs. Toxicol Sci. 2005;88:12–17.

Hong SC, Lee JH, Lee J, Kim HY, Park JY, Cho J, Han DW. Subtle cytotoxicity and genotoxicity differences in the superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles coated with various functional groups. International Journal of Nanomedicine. 2011;6:3219–3231. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S26355 .

Hussain S, Boland S, Baeza-Squiban A, et al. Oxidative stress and proinflammatory effects of carbon black and titanium dioxide nanoparticles: role of particle surface area and internalized amount. Toxicol. 2009;260:142–149.

Hyuk Suh W, Suslick SK, Stucky Galen D, SuhYoo-Hun. Nanotechnology, nanotoxicology, and neuroscience. Pro Neurobiol. 2009; 87(3):133–170.

Jayaseelan C, Rahuman AA, Ramkuma R, Perumal P, Rajakumar G, Kirthi G, Santhoshkumar AV, Marimuthu S. Effects of sub-acute exposure to nickel nanoparticles on oxidative stress and histopathological changes in Mozambique tilapia Oreochromis mossambicus. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2014;107:220–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.06.012 .

Kagan VE, Shi J, Feng W, Shvedova AA, Fadeel B. Fantastic voyage and opportunities of engineered nanomaterials: what are the potential risks of occupational exposures? J Occup Environ Med. 2010; 52(9):943–946. [PubMed: 20829674]

Kim Do-Kyung. Superparamagnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles for Biomedical Applications. Stockholm 2001 Licentiate Thesis. Royal Institute of Technology Department of Material Science and Engineering

Google Scholar  

Kim JS. Antimicrobial effects of silver nanoparticles. Nanomed Nanotechnol Bio Med. 2007; 3:95–101.

Kim KT, Klaine SJ, Cho J, Kim S-H and Kim SD. Oxidative stress responses of Daphnia magna exposed to TiO2 nanoparticles according to size fraction. Science of the Total Environment. 2010;408(10):2268–2272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.01.041 .

Kishore PS, Viswananthan B, Varadarajan TK. Synthesis and characterization of metal nanoparticles embedded conducting polymer-polyoxometalate. Nanoscale Research Letters. 2008;3:14–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11671-007-9107-z .

Klaine SJ, Alvarez PJJ, Batley GE, Gernandes TF, Handy RD, Lyon DY, Mahendra S, McLaughlin MJ, Lead JR. Nanomaterials in the environment: behaviour, fate, bioavailability, and effects. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2008;27(9):1825–1851. https://doi.org/10.1897/08-090.1 .

Landsiedel R, Kapp MD, Schulz, M, Wiench K, Oesch F. Genotoxicity investigations on nanomaterials: methods, preparation and characterization of test material, potential artifacts and limitations – many questions, some answers. Mutation Research. 2009;681(2–3):241–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2008.10.002 .

Lankvel DPK, Oomen AG, Krystek P, Neigh A, Troost-de Jong A, Noorlander JCH, Geertsma RE, De Jong WH. The kinetics of the tissue distribution of silver nanoparticles of different sizes. Biomaterials. 2010;31:8350–8361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.07.045 .

Lee SH, Pumprueg S, Moudgil B, Sigmund W. Inactivation of bacterial endospores by photocatalytic nanocomposites. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, (2005);40(2):93–8.

Lindberg HK, Falck GS-M, Suhonen S, et al. Genotoxicity of nanomaterials: DNA damage and micronuclei induced by carbon nanotubes and graphite nanofibres in human bronchial epithelial cells in vitro. Toxicol Lett. 2009; 186(3):166–173. [PubMed: 19114091]

Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Corey LM. Nanotoxicology and nanomedicine: making hard decisions. Nanomedicine: Nanotech Bio and Med. 2008;4:167–171.

Lui Y, Xia Q, Liu Y, Zhang S, Cheng F, Zhong Z, Wang L, Li H, Xiao K. Genotoxicity assessment of magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles with different particle sizes and surface coatings. Nanotechnology. 2014;25(42):425101. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/25/42/425101 .

Mahmoudi M, Simchi A, Milani AS, Stroeve P. Cell toxicity of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles. J Colloid Inter Sci. 2009; 336(2):510–518

Miao A-J, Luo Z, Chen C-S, Chin W-S, Santschi PH, Quigg A. Intracellular uptake: a possible mechanisms for silver engineered nanoparticle toxicity to a freshwater alga Ochromonas danica. PLoS One. 2010;5(12):e15196. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015196 .

Moore MN. Do nanoparticles present ecotoxicological risks for the health of the aquatic environment? Environment International. 2006;32(8):967–976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2006.06.014 .

Murdock RC, Braydich-Stolle L, Schrand AM, Schlager JJ, Hussain SM. Characterization of nanomaterial dispersion in solution prior to in vitro exposure using dynamic light scattering technique. Toxicological Sciences. 2008;101(2):239–253. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfm240 .

Oberdo G. Safety assessment for nanotechnology and nanomedicine: concepts of nanotoxicology. J Inte Med. 2010;267:89–105.

Oberdorster E, Zhu SQ, Blickley TM, Clellan-Green P, Haasch ML. Ecotoxicology of carbon-based engineered nanoparticles: effects of fullerene (C-60) on aquatic organisms. Carbon. 2006;44(6):1112–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2005.11.008 .

Oberdorster G, Ferin J, Lehnert BE. Correlation between particle-size, in-vivo particle persistence, and lung injury. Environ Health Persp. 1994;102:173–179.

Oberdörster G, Stone V, Donaldson K. Toxicology of nanoparticles: a historical perspective. Nanotoxicology. 2009; 1(1):2–25.

Oberholster PJ, Musee N, Noth A-M, Chelule PK, Focke WW, Ashton PJ. Assessment of the effect of nanomaterials on sediment-dwelling invertebrate Chironomus tentans larvae. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2011;74:416–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2010.12.012 .

Oukarroum A, Bras S, Perreault F, Popovic R. Inhibitory effects of silver nanoparticles in two green algae, Chlorella vulgaris and Dunaliella tertiolecta. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2012;78(1):80–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2011.11.012 .

Pan L, Zhang H. Metallothionein, antioxidant enzymes and DNA strand breaks as biomarkers of Cd exposure in a marine crab, Charybdis japonica. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part C. 2006;144(1):67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpc.2006.06.001

Park S-Y and Choi J. Geno- and ecotoxicity evaluation of silver nanoparticles in freshwater crustacean Daphnia magna. Environmental Engineering Research. 2010;15(1):23–27. https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2010.15.1.428 .

Perez S, Farre M, Barcelo D. Analysis, behavior and ecotoxicity of carbon-based nanomaterials in the aquatic environment. Trends in Analytical Chemistry. 2009;28:820–832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2009.04.001 .

Rishikesh MS. Nanosized cancer cell-targeted polymeric immunomicelles loaded with super paramagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles. Nanopart Res. 2009;6:1–9.

Schulte PA, Geraci CL, Murashov V, et al. Occupational safety and health criteria for responsible development of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res. 2014; 16(1):2153. [PubMed: 24482607]

Scown TM, Santaos EM, Johnston BD, GAiser B, Baalousha M, Mitov S, Lead JR, Stone V, Fernandes TF, Jepson, M, van Aerle R, Tyler CR. Effects of aqueous exposure to silver nanoparticles of different sizes in rainbow trout. Toxicological Sciences. 2010;115(2): 521–534. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfq076 .

Shi H, Hudson LG, Liu KJ. Oxidative stress and apoptosis in metal ion-induced carcinogenesis. Free Radical Biology and Medicine. 2004;37(5):582–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2004.03.012 .

Shvedova AA, Kisin ER, Porter D, et al. Mechanisms of pulmonary toxicity and medical applications of carbon nanotubes: two faces of Janus? Pharmacol Ther. 2009; 121(2):192–204. [PubMed: 19103221]

Singh N, Manshian B, Jenkins JS, et al. Nano-Genotoxicology: The DNA damaging potential of engineered nanomaterials. Biomaterials. 2009; 30(23–24):3891–3914. [PubMed: 19427031]

Singh S, Shi T, Duffin R, et al. Endocytosis, oxidative stress and IL-8 expression in human lung epithelial cells upon treatment with fine and ultrafine TiO2: role of the specific surface area and of surface methylation of the particles. Toxico Appl Pharmacol. 2007;222(2): 141–151.

Stadtman ER, Berlett BS. Reactive oxygen-mediated protein oxidation in aging and disease. Chemical Research and Toxicology 1997;10(5):485–494. https://doi.org/10.1021/tx960133r .

Toensmeier PA. Nanotechnology faces scrutiny over environment and toxicity. Plastics Engineering. 2004;60(11):14–17.

United States Congress Joint Economic Committee Study. Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner than you Think. Washington, DC: JEC; 2007

Vance ME, Kuiken T, Vejerano EP, McGinnis SP, Hochelle Jr MF, Rejeski D, Hull MS. Nanotechnology in the real world: redeveloping the nanomaterials consumer products inventory. Journal of Nanotechnology. 2015;6:1769–1780. https://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.6.181 .

Walters C, Pool E, Somerset V. Aggregation and dissolution of silver nanoparticles in a laboratory-based freshwater microcosm under simulated environmental conditions. Toxicology and Environmental Chemistry. 2013;95(10):1690–1701. https://doi.org/10.1080/02772248.2014.904141 .

Walters C, Pool E, Somerset V. Nanotoxicity in aquatic invertebrates. In: Larramendy ML, Soloneski S, editors. Invertebrates—Experimental Models in Toxicity Screening. 1st ed. Croatia: InTech; 2016a. p. 13–34. https://doi.org/10.5772/61715 . Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/invertebrates-experimental-models-in-toxicity-screening/nanotoxicity-in-aquatic-invertebrates

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Walters CR, Cheng P, Pool E, Somerset V. Effect of temperature on oxidative stress parameters and enzyme activity in the tissues of cape river crab (Potamonautes perlatus) following exposure to silver nanoparticles (AgNP). Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A. 2016b;79(2):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2015.1106357 .

Wang C. C60 and Water-soluble fullerene derivatives as antioxidants against radical-initiated lipid peroxidation. J Med Chem. 1999;42: 4614–4620.

Wiench K, Wohlleben W, Hisgen V, Radke K, Salinas E, Zok S, Landsiedel R. Acute and chronic effects of nano- and non nano-scale TiO2 and ZnO particles on mobility and reproduction of the freshwater invertebrate Daphnia magna. Chemosphere. 2009;76(10):1356–1365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.06.025 .

Willems I, Konya Z, Colomer J-F, et al. Control of the outer diameter of thin carbon nanotubes synthesized by catalytic decomposition of hydro-carbons. Chem Phys Lett. 2000;317:71–76

Wu Y, Zhou Q, Li H, Liu W, Wang T, Jiang G. Effects of silver nanoparticles on the development and histopathology biomarkers of Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes) using the partial-life test. Aquatic Toxicology. 2010;100(2):160–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2009.11.014 .

Xia Q, Chiang H-M, Zhou Y-T, Yin J-J, Liu F, Wang C, Guo L, Fu PP. Phototoxicity of kava—formation of reactive oxygen species leading to lipid peroxidation and DNA damage. The American Journal of Chinese Medicine. 2012;40(6):1271–1288. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0192415X12500942 .

Zhang QW, Kusaka Y, Sato K, Nakakuki K, Kohyama N, Donaldson K. Differences in the extent of inflammation caused by intratracheal exposure to three ultrafine metals: role of free radicals. J Toxicol Env Heal. 1998;53:423–438.

Schlesinger RB. Toxicological evidence for health effects from inhaled particulate pollution: does it support the human experience? Inhal Toxicol. 1995;7:99–109

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Amity Institute for Advanced Research and Studies (M&D), Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

Rupesh Kumar Basniwal

Amity Institute of Environmental Toxicology, Safety and Management, Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

Anuj Ranjan & Abhishek Chauhan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rupesh Kumar Basniwal .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Institute of Environmental Toxicology, Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

Tanu Jindal

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Basniwal, R.K., Ranjan, A., Chauhan, A. (2022). Environmental Nanotoxicology: Features, Application, and Characterization. In: Jindal, T. (eds) New Frontiers in Environmental Toxicology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72173-2_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72173-2_6

Published : 22 September 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-72172-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-72173-2

eBook Packages : Chemistry and Materials Science Chemistry and Material Science (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Search Menu
• Original Articles
• Communications
• High-Impact Collection
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access Policy
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Why Publish with Us?
• About Toxicology Research
• Editorial Board
• Authorship Guidelines
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Editor-in-Chief

Heather Wallace

Associate editors

Shirley Price

Lisa Truong

Ping-Kun Zhou

About the journal

Toxicology Research  publishes cutting edge research that is excellent and innovative, that drives toxicology and has international impact. Articles cover chemical or biological aspects of the toxic response and the mechanisms involved.

Special Issues & Collections

High-Impact Research Collection

Explore a collection of the most read, most cited, and most discussed articles published in Toxicology Research  in recent years and discover what has caught the interest of your peers.

Browse the collection here

Advances in Experimental and Regulatory Toxicology

This special issue of  Toxicology Research  features invited papers to honor the contributions made to toxicology by Professor Iain Purchase and Dr. Cliff Elcombe. Guest edited by Brian Lake, Lewis Smith, and Sam Cohen.

Browse the issue

Spotlight on Systems Toxicology

Explore a collection of work in the area of systems toxicology, covering a wide span of topics, from mathematical in silico models, more descriptive "omics"-based approaches (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabonomics, etc.), to developing a systems view of toxicity.

Browse the collection

New Talents

This themed collection of  Toxicology Research  showcases the work being conducted by new talents in toxicology across the globe. It highlights up-and-coming scientists in the early stages of their independent careers, who are internationally recognized for making outstanding contributions to the field.

Latest articles

Latest posts on x.

Toxicology Research  welcomes papers that cover chemical or biological aspects of the toxic response and the mechanisms involved.

• Why publish with us?
• Author guidelines

Author resources

Learn about how to submit your article, our publishing process, and tips on how to promote your article.

Find out more

The British Toxicology Society

Toxicology Research  is the official journal of the British Toxicology Society (bts). The bts is a society for all fields of professional toxicologists and all with an interest in toxicology.

Chinese Society of Toxicology

Toxicology Research  is also the official journal of the Chinese Society of Toxicology (CST). CST is a non-profit national academic organization composed of the experts and professionals in the field of toxicological science and technology in China.

Discover a more complete picture of how readers engage with research in Toxicology Research  through Altmetric data. Now available on article pages.

Email alerts

Register to receive email alerts as soon as new content from Toxicology Research  is published online.

Recommend to your library

Fill out our simple online form to recommend Toxicology Research to your library.

Recommend now

Read and Publish deals

Authors interested in publishing in Toxicology Research may be able to publish their paper Open Access using funds available through their institution’s agreement with OUP.

Find out if your institution is participating

Related Titles

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2045-4538
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 17 April 2024

The economic commitment of climate change

• Maximilian Kotz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2564-5043 1 , 2 ,
• Anders Levermann   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4432-4704 1 , 2 &
• Leonie Wenz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8500-1568 1 , 3  

Nature volume  628 ,  pages 551–557 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

51k Accesses

3279 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Environmental economics
• Environmental health
• Interdisciplinary studies
• Projection and prediction

Global projections of macroeconomic climate-change damages typically consider impacts from average annual and national temperatures over long time horizons 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 . Here we use recent empirical findings from more than 1,600 regions worldwide over the past 40 years to project sub-national damages from temperature and precipitation, including daily variability and extremes 7 , 8 . Using an empirical approach that provides a robust lower bound on the persistence of impacts on economic growth, we find that the world economy is committed to an income reduction of 19% within the next 26 years independent of future emission choices (relative to a baseline without climate impacts, likely range of 11–29% accounting for physical climate and empirical uncertainty). These damages already outweigh the mitigation costs required to limit global warming to 2 °C by sixfold over this near-term time frame and thereafter diverge strongly dependent on emission choices. Committed damages arise predominantly through changes in average temperature, but accounting for further climatic components raises estimates by approximately 50% and leads to stronger regional heterogeneity. Committed losses are projected for all regions except those at very high latitudes, at which reductions in temperature variability bring benefits. The largest losses are committed at lower latitudes in regions with lower cumulative historical emissions and lower present-day income.

Similar content being viewed by others

Climate damage projections beyond annual temperature

Paul Waidelich, Fulden Batibeniz, … Sonia I. Seneviratne

Investment incentive reduced by climate damages can be restored by optimal policy

Sven N. Willner, Nicole Glanemann & Anders Levermann

Climate economics support for the UN climate targets

Martin C. Hänsel, Moritz A. Drupp, … Thomas Sterner

Projections of the macroeconomic damage caused by future climate change are crucial to informing public and policy debates about adaptation, mitigation and climate justice. On the one hand, adaptation against climate impacts must be justified and planned on the basis of an understanding of their future magnitude and spatial distribution 9 . This is also of importance in the context of climate justice 10 , as well as to key societal actors, including governments, central banks and private businesses, which increasingly require the inclusion of climate risks in their macroeconomic forecasts to aid adaptive decision-making 11 , 12 . On the other hand, climate mitigation policy such as the Paris Climate Agreement is often evaluated by balancing the costs of its implementation against the benefits of avoiding projected physical damages. This evaluation occurs both formally through cost–benefit analyses 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , as well as informally through public perception of mitigation and damage costs 13 .

Projections of future damages meet challenges when informing these debates, in particular the human biases relating to uncertainty and remoteness that are raised by long-term perspectives 14 . Here we aim to overcome such challenges by assessing the extent of economic damages from climate change to which the world is already committed by historical emissions and socio-economic inertia (the range of future emission scenarios that are considered socio-economically plausible 15 ). Such a focus on the near term limits the large uncertainties about diverging future emission trajectories, the resulting long-term climate response and the validity of applying historically observed climate–economic relations over long timescales during which socio-technical conditions may change considerably. As such, this focus aims to simplify the communication and maximize the credibility of projected economic damages from future climate change.

In projecting the future economic damages from climate change, we make use of recent advances in climate econometrics that provide evidence for impacts on sub-national economic growth from numerous components of the distribution of daily temperature and precipitation 3 , 7 , 8 . Using fixed-effects panel regression models to control for potential confounders, these studies exploit within-region variation in local temperature and precipitation in a panel of more than 1,600 regions worldwide, comprising climate and income data over the past 40 years, to identify the plausibly causal effects of changes in several climate variables on economic productivity 16 , 17 . Specifically, macroeconomic impacts have been identified from changing daily temperature variability, total annual precipitation, the annual number of wet days and extreme daily rainfall that occur in addition to those already identified from changing average temperature 2 , 3 , 18 . Moreover, regional heterogeneity in these effects based on the prevailing local climatic conditions has been found using interactions terms. The selection of these climate variables follows micro-level evidence for mechanisms related to the impacts of average temperatures on labour and agricultural productivity 2 , of temperature variability on agricultural productivity and health 7 , as well as of precipitation on agricultural productivity, labour outcomes and flood damages 8 (see Extended Data Table 1 for an overview, including more detailed references). References  7 , 8 contain a more detailed motivation for the use of these particular climate variables and provide extensive empirical tests about the robustness and nature of their effects on economic output, which are summarized in Methods . By accounting for these extra climatic variables at the sub-national level, we aim for a more comprehensive description of climate impacts with greater detail across both time and space.

Constraining the persistence of impacts

A key determinant and source of discrepancy in estimates of the magnitude of future climate damages is the extent to which the impact of a climate variable on economic growth rates persists. The two extreme cases in which these impacts persist indefinitely or only instantaneously are commonly referred to as growth or level effects 19 , 20 (see Methods section ‘Empirical model specification: fixed-effects distributed lag models’ for mathematical definitions). Recent work shows that future damages from climate change depend strongly on whether growth or level effects are assumed 20 . Following refs.  2 , 18 , we provide constraints on this persistence by using distributed lag models to test the significance of delayed effects separately for each climate variable. Notably, and in contrast to refs.  2 , 18 , we use climate variables in their first-differenced form following ref.  3 , implying a dependence of the growth rate on a change in climate variables. This choice means that a baseline specification without any lags constitutes a model prior of purely level effects, in which a permanent change in the climate has only an instantaneous effect on the growth rate 3 , 19 , 21 . By including lags, one can then test whether any effects may persist further. This is in contrast to the specification used by refs.  2 , 18 , in which climate variables are used without taking the first difference, implying a dependence of the growth rate on the level of climate variables. In this alternative case, the baseline specification without any lags constitutes a model prior of pure growth effects, in which a change in climate has an infinitely persistent effect on the growth rate. Consequently, including further lags in this alternative case tests whether the initial growth impact is recovered 18 , 19 , 21 . Both of these specifications suffer from the limiting possibility that, if too few lags are included, one might falsely accept the model prior. The limitations of including a very large number of lags, including loss of data and increasing statistical uncertainty with an increasing number of parameters, mean that such a possibility is likely. By choosing a specification in which the model prior is one of level effects, our approach is therefore conservative by design, avoiding assumptions of infinite persistence of climate impacts on growth and instead providing a lower bound on this persistence based on what is observable empirically (see Methods section ‘Empirical model specification: fixed-effects distributed lag models’ for further exposition of this framework). The conservative nature of such a choice is probably the reason that ref.  19 finds much greater consistency between the impacts projected by models that use the first difference of climate variables, as opposed to their levels.

We begin our empirical analysis of the persistence of climate impacts on growth using ten lags of the first-differenced climate variables in fixed-effects distributed lag models. We detect substantial effects on economic growth at time lags of up to approximately 8–10 years for the temperature terms and up to approximately 4 years for the precipitation terms (Extended Data Fig. 1 and Extended Data Table 2 ). Furthermore, evaluation by means of information criteria indicates that the inclusion of all five climate variables and the use of these numbers of lags provide a preferable trade-off between best-fitting the data and including further terms that could cause overfitting, in comparison with model specifications excluding climate variables or including more or fewer lags (Extended Data Fig. 3 , Supplementary Methods Section  1 and Supplementary Table 1 ). We therefore remove statistically insignificant terms at later lags (Supplementary Figs. 1 – 3 and Supplementary Tables 2 – 4 ). Further tests using Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate that the empirical models are robust to autocorrelation in the lagged climate variables (Supplementary Methods Section  2 and Supplementary Figs. 4 and 5 ), that information criteria provide an effective indicator for lag selection (Supplementary Methods Section  2 and Supplementary Fig. 6 ), that the results are robust to concerns of imperfect multicollinearity between climate variables and that including several climate variables is actually necessary to isolate their separate effects (Supplementary Methods Section  3 and Supplementary Fig. 7 ). We provide a further robustness check using a restricted distributed lag model to limit oscillations in the lagged parameter estimates that may result from autocorrelation, finding that it provides similar estimates of cumulative marginal effects to the unrestricted model (Supplementary Methods Section 4 and Supplementary Figs. 8 and 9 ). Finally, to explicitly account for any outstanding uncertainty arising from the precise choice of the number of lags, we include empirical models with marginally different numbers of lags in the error-sampling procedure of our projection of future damages. On the basis of the lag-selection procedure (the significance of lagged terms in Extended Data Fig. 1 and Extended Data Table 2 , as well as information criteria in Extended Data Fig. 3 ), we sample from models with eight to ten lags for temperature and four for precipitation (models shown in Supplementary Figs. 1 – 3 and Supplementary Tables 2 – 4 ). In summary, this empirical approach to constrain the persistence of climate impacts on economic growth rates is conservative by design in avoiding assumptions of infinite persistence, but nevertheless provides a lower bound on the extent of impact persistence that is robust to the numerous tests outlined above.

Committed damages until mid-century

We combine these empirical economic response functions (Supplementary Figs. 1 – 3 and Supplementary Tables 2 – 4 ) with an ensemble of 21 climate models (see Supplementary Table 5 ) from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP-6) 22 to project the macroeconomic damages from these components of physical climate change (see Methods for further details). Bias-adjusted climate models that provide a highly accurate reproduction of observed climatological patterns with limited uncertainty (Supplementary Table 6 ) are used to avoid introducing biases in the projections. Following a well-developed literature 2 , 3 , 19 , these projections do not aim to provide a prediction of future economic growth. Instead, they are a projection of the exogenous impact of future climate conditions on the economy relative to the baselines specified by socio-economic projections, based on the plausibly causal relationships inferred by the empirical models and assuming ceteris paribus. Other exogenous factors relevant for the prediction of economic output are purposefully assumed constant.

A Monte Carlo procedure that samples from climate model projections, empirical models with different numbers of lags and model parameter estimates (obtained by 1,000 block-bootstrap resamples of each of the regressions in Supplementary Figs. 1 – 3 and Supplementary Tables 2 – 4 ) is used to estimate the combined uncertainty from these sources. Given these uncertainty distributions, we find that projected global damages are statistically indistinguishable across the two most extreme emission scenarios until 2049 (at the 5% significance level; Fig. 1 ). As such, the climate damages occurring before this time constitute those to which the world is already committed owing to the combination of past emissions and the range of future emission scenarios that are considered socio-economically plausible 15 . These committed damages comprise a permanent income reduction of 19% on average globally (population-weighted average) in comparison with a baseline without climate-change impacts (with a likely range of 11–29%, following the likelihood classification adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); see caption of Fig. 1 ). Even though levels of income per capita generally still increase relative to those of today, this constitutes a permanent income reduction for most regions, including North America and Europe (each with median income reductions of approximately 11%) and with South Asia and Africa being the most strongly affected (each with median income reductions of approximately 22%; Fig. 1 ). Under a middle-of-the road scenario of future income development (SSP2, in which SSP stands for Shared Socio-economic Pathway), this corresponds to global annual damages in 2049 of 38 trillion in 2005 international dollars (likely range of 19–59 trillion 2005 international dollars). Compared with empirical specifications that assume pure growth or pure level effects, our preferred specification that provides a robust lower bound on the extent of climate impact persistence produces damages between these two extreme assumptions (Extended Data Fig. 3 ).

Estimates of the projected reduction in income per capita from changes in all climate variables based on empirical models of climate impacts on economic output with a robust lower bound on their persistence (Extended Data Fig. 1 ) under a low-emission scenario compatible with the 2 °C warming target and a high-emission scenario (SSP2-RCP2.6 and SSP5-RCP8.5, respectively) are shown in purple and orange, respectively. Shading represents the 34% and 10% confidence intervals reflecting the likely and very likely ranges, respectively (following the likelihood classification adopted by the IPCC), having estimated uncertainty from a Monte Carlo procedure, which samples the uncertainty from the choice of physical climate models, empirical models with different numbers of lags and bootstrapped estimates of the regression parameters shown in Supplementary Figs. 1 – 3 . Vertical dashed lines show the time at which the climate damages of the two emission scenarios diverge at the 5% and 1% significance levels based on the distribution of differences between emission scenarios arising from the uncertainty sampling discussed above. Note that uncertainty in the difference of the two scenarios is smaller than the combined uncertainty of the two respective scenarios because samples of the uncertainty (climate model and empirical model choice, as well as model parameter bootstrap) are consistent across the two emission scenarios, hence the divergence of damages occurs while the uncertainty bounds of the two separate damage scenarios still overlap. Estimates of global mitigation costs from the three IAMs that provide results for the SSP2 baseline and SSP2-RCP2.6 scenario are shown in light green in the top panel, with the median of these estimates shown in bold.

Damages already outweigh mitigation costs

We compare the damages to which the world is committed over the next 25 years to estimates of the mitigation costs required to achieve the Paris Climate Agreement. Taking estimates of mitigation costs from the three integrated assessment models (IAMs) in the IPCC AR6 database 23 that provide results under comparable scenarios (SSP2 baseline and SSP2-RCP2.6, in which RCP stands for Representative Concentration Pathway), we find that the median committed climate damages are larger than the median mitigation costs in 2050 (six trillion in 2005 international dollars) by a factor of approximately six (note that estimates of mitigation costs are only provided every 10 years by the IAMs and so a comparison in 2049 is not possible). This comparison simply aims to compare the magnitude of future damages against mitigation costs, rather than to conduct a formal cost–benefit analysis of transitioning from one emission path to another. Formal cost–benefit analyses typically find that the net benefits of mitigation only emerge after 2050 (ref.  5 ), which may lead some to conclude that physical damages from climate change are simply not large enough to outweigh mitigation costs until the second half of the century. Our simple comparison of their magnitudes makes clear that damages are actually already considerably larger than mitigation costs and the delayed emergence of net mitigation benefits results primarily from the fact that damages across different emission paths are indistinguishable until mid-century (Fig. 1 ).

Although these near-term damages constitute those to which the world is already committed, we note that damage estimates diverge strongly across emission scenarios after 2049, conveying the clear benefits of mitigation from a purely economic point of view that have been emphasized in previous studies 4 , 24 . As well as the uncertainties assessed in Fig. 1 , these conclusions are robust to structural choices, such as the timescale with which changes in the moderating variables of the empirical models are estimated (Supplementary Figs. 10 and 11 ), as well as the order in which one accounts for the intertemporal and international components of currency comparison (Supplementary Fig. 12 ; see Methods for further details).

Damages from variability and extremes

Committed damages primarily arise through changes in average temperature (Fig. 2 ). This reflects the fact that projected changes in average temperature are larger than those in other climate variables when expressed as a function of their historical interannual variability (Extended Data Fig. 4 ). Because the historical variability is that on which the empirical models are estimated, larger projected changes in comparison with this variability probably lead to larger future impacts in a purely statistical sense. From a mechanistic perspective, one may plausibly interpret this result as implying that future changes in average temperature are the most unprecedented from the perspective of the historical fluctuations to which the economy is accustomed and therefore will cause the most damage. This insight may prove useful in terms of guiding adaptation measures to the sources of greatest damage.

Estimates of the median projected reduction in sub-national income per capita across emission scenarios (SSP2-RCP2.6 and SSP2-RCP8.5) as well as climate model, empirical model and model parameter uncertainty in the year in which climate damages diverge at the 5% level (2049, as identified in Fig. 1 ). a , Impacts arising from all climate variables. b – f , Impacts arising separately from changes in annual mean temperature ( b ), daily temperature variability ( c ), total annual precipitation ( d ), the annual number of wet days (>1 mm) ( e ) and extreme daily rainfall ( f ) (see Methods for further definitions). Data on national administrative boundaries are obtained from the GADM database version 3.6 and are freely available for academic use ( https://gadm.org/ ).

Nevertheless, future damages based on empirical models that consider changes in annual average temperature only and exclude the other climate variables constitute income reductions of only 13% in 2049 (Extended Data Fig. 5a , likely range 5–21%). This suggests that accounting for the other components of the distribution of temperature and precipitation raises net damages by nearly 50%. This increase arises through the further damages that these climatic components cause, but also because their inclusion reveals a stronger negative economic response to average temperatures (Extended Data Fig. 5b ). The latter finding is consistent with our Monte Carlo simulations, which suggest that the magnitude of the effect of average temperature on economic growth is underestimated unless accounting for the impacts of other correlated climate variables (Supplementary Fig. 7 ).

In terms of the relative contributions of the different climatic components to overall damages, we find that accounting for daily temperature variability causes the largest increase in overall damages relative to empirical frameworks that only consider changes in annual average temperature (4.9 percentage points, likely range 2.4–8.7 percentage points, equivalent to approximately 10 trillion international dollars). Accounting for precipitation causes smaller increases in overall damages, which are—nevertheless—equivalent to approximately 1.2 trillion international dollars: 0.01 percentage points (−0.37–0.33 percentage points), 0.34 percentage points (0.07–0.90 percentage points) and 0.36 percentage points (0.13–0.65 percentage points) from total annual precipitation, the number of wet days and extreme daily precipitation, respectively. Moreover, climate models seem to underestimate future changes in temperature variability 25 and extreme precipitation 26 , 27 in response to anthropogenic forcing as compared with that observed historically, suggesting that the true impacts from these variables may be larger.

The distribution of committed damages

The spatial distribution of committed damages (Fig. 2a ) reflects a complex interplay between the patterns of future change in several climatic components and those of historical economic vulnerability to changes in those variables. Damages resulting from increasing annual mean temperature (Fig. 2b ) are negative almost everywhere globally, and larger at lower latitudes in regions in which temperatures are already higher and economic vulnerability to temperature increases is greatest (see the response heterogeneity to mean temperature embodied in Extended Data Fig. 1a ). This occurs despite the amplified warming projected at higher latitudes 28 , suggesting that regional heterogeneity in economic vulnerability to temperature changes outweighs heterogeneity in the magnitude of future warming (Supplementary Fig. 13a ). Economic damages owing to daily temperature variability (Fig. 2c ) exhibit a strong latitudinal polarisation, primarily reflecting the physical response of daily variability to greenhouse forcing in which increases in variability across lower latitudes (and Europe) contrast decreases at high latitudes 25 (Supplementary Fig. 13b ). These two temperature terms are the dominant determinants of the pattern of overall damages (Fig. 2a ), which exhibits a strong polarity with damages across most of the globe except at the highest northern latitudes. Future changes in total annual precipitation mainly bring economic benefits except in regions of drying, such as the Mediterranean and central South America (Fig. 2d and Supplementary Fig. 13c ), but these benefits are opposed by changes in the number of wet days, which produce damages with a similar pattern of opposite sign (Fig. 2e and Supplementary Fig. 13d ). By contrast, changes in extreme daily rainfall produce damages in all regions, reflecting the intensification of daily rainfall extremes over global land areas 29 , 30 (Fig. 2f and Supplementary Fig. 13e ).

The spatial distribution of committed damages implies considerable injustice along two dimensions: culpability for the historical emissions that have caused climate change and pre-existing levels of socio-economic welfare. Spearman’s rank correlations indicate that committed damages are significantly larger in countries with smaller historical cumulative emissions, as well as in regions with lower current income per capita (Fig. 3 ). This implies that those countries that will suffer the most from the damages already committed are those that are least responsible for climate change and which also have the least resources to adapt to it.

Estimates of the median projected change in national income per capita across emission scenarios (RCP2.6 and RCP8.5) as well as climate model, empirical model and model parameter uncertainty in the year in which climate damages diverge at the 5% level (2049, as identified in Fig. 1 ) are plotted against cumulative national emissions per capita in 2020 (from the Global Carbon Project) and coloured by national income per capita in 2020 (from the World Bank) in a and vice versa in b . In each panel, the size of each scatter point is weighted by the national population in 2020 (from the World Bank). Inset numbers indicate the Spearman’s rank correlation ρ and P -values for a hypothesis test whose null hypothesis is of no correlation, as well as the Spearman’s rank correlation weighted by national population.

To further quantify this heterogeneity, we assess the difference in committed damages between the upper and lower quartiles of regions when ranked by present income levels and historical cumulative emissions (using a population weighting to both define the quartiles and estimate the group averages). On average, the quartile of countries with lower income are committed to an income loss that is 8.9 percentage points (or 61%) greater than the upper quartile (Extended Data Fig. 6 ), with a likely range of 3.8–14.7 percentage points across the uncertainty sampling of our damage projections (following the likelihood classification adopted by the IPCC). Similarly, the quartile of countries with lower historical cumulative emissions are committed to an income loss that is 6.9 percentage points (or 40%) greater than the upper quartile, with a likely range of 0.27–12 percentage points. These patterns reemphasize the prevalence of injustice in climate impacts 31 , 32 , 33 in the context of the damages to which the world is already committed by historical emissions and socio-economic inertia.

Contextualizing the magnitude of damages

The magnitude of projected economic damages exceeds previous literature estimates 2 , 3 , arising from several developments made on previous approaches. Our estimates are larger than those of ref.  2 (see first row of Extended Data Table 3 ), primarily because of the facts that sub-national estimates typically show a steeper temperature response (see also refs.  3 , 34 ) and that accounting for other climatic components raises damage estimates (Extended Data Fig. 5 ). However, we note that our empirical approach using first-differenced climate variables is conservative compared with that of ref.  2 in regard to the persistence of climate impacts on growth (see introduction and Methods section ‘Empirical model specification: fixed-effects distributed lag models’), an important determinant of the magnitude of long-term damages 19 , 21 . Using a similar empirical specification to ref.  2 , which assumes infinite persistence while maintaining the rest of our approach (sub-national data and further climate variables), produces considerably larger damages (purple curve of Extended Data Fig. 3 ). Compared with studies that do take the first difference of climate variables 3 , 35 , our estimates are also larger (see second and third rows of Extended Data Table 3 ). The inclusion of further climate variables (Extended Data Fig. 5 ) and a sufficient number of lags to more adequately capture the extent of impact persistence (Extended Data Figs. 1 and 2 ) are the main sources of this difference, as is the use of specifications that capture nonlinearities in the temperature response when compared with ref.  35 . In summary, our estimates develop on previous studies by incorporating the latest data and empirical insights 7 , 8 , as well as in providing a robust empirical lower bound on the persistence of impacts on economic growth, which constitutes a middle ground between the extremes of the growth-versus-levels debate 19 , 21 (Extended Data Fig. 3 ).

Compared with the fraction of variance explained by the empirical models historically (<5%), the projection of reductions in income of 19% may seem large. This arises owing to the fact that projected changes in climatic conditions are much larger than those that were experienced historically, particularly for changes in average temperature (Extended Data Fig. 4 ). As such, any assessment of future climate-change impacts necessarily requires an extrapolation outside the range of the historical data on which the empirical impact models were evaluated. Nevertheless, these models constitute the most state-of-the-art methods for inference of plausibly causal climate impacts based on observed data. Moreover, we take explicit steps to limit out-of-sample extrapolation by capping the moderating variables of the interaction terms at the 95th percentile of the historical distribution (see Methods ). This avoids extrapolating the marginal effects outside what was observed historically. Given the nonlinear response of economic output to annual mean temperature (Extended Data Fig. 1 and Extended Data Table 2 ), this is a conservative choice that limits the magnitude of damages that we project. Furthermore, back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate that the projected damages are consistent with the magnitude and patterns of historical economic development (see Supplementary Discussion Section  5 ).

Missing impacts and spatial spillovers

Despite assessing several climatic components from which economic impacts have recently been identified 3 , 7 , 8 , this assessment of aggregate climate damages should not be considered comprehensive. Important channels such as impacts from heatwaves 31 , sea-level rise 36 , tropical cyclones 37 and tipping points 38 , 39 , as well as non-market damages such as those to ecosystems 40 and human health 41 , are not considered in these estimates. Sea-level rise is unlikely to be feasibly incorporated into empirical assessments such as this because historical sea-level variability is mostly small. Non-market damages are inherently intractable within our estimates of impacts on aggregate monetary output and estimates of these impacts could arguably be considered as extra to those identified here. Recent empirical work suggests that accounting for these channels would probably raise estimates of these committed damages, with larger damages continuing to arise in the global south 31 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 .

Moreover, our main empirical analysis does not explicitly evaluate the potential for impacts in local regions to produce effects that ‘spill over’ into other regions. Such effects may further mitigate or amplify the impacts we estimate, for example, if companies relocate production from one affected region to another or if impacts propagate along supply chains. The current literature indicates that trade plays a substantial role in propagating spillover effects 43 , 44 , making their assessment at the sub-national level challenging without available data on sub-national trade dependencies. Studies accounting for only spatially adjacent neighbours indicate that negative impacts in one region induce further negative impacts in neighbouring regions 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , suggesting that our projected damages are probably conservative by excluding these effects. In Supplementary Fig. 14 , we assess spillovers from neighbouring regions using a spatial-lag model. For simplicity, this analysis excludes temporal lags, focusing only on contemporaneous effects. The results show that accounting for spatial spillovers can amplify the overall magnitude, and also the heterogeneity, of impacts. Consistent with previous literature, this indicates that the overall magnitude (Fig. 1 ) and heterogeneity (Fig. 3 ) of damages that we project in our main specification may be conservative without explicitly accounting for spillovers. We note that further analysis that addresses both spatially and trade-connected spillovers, while also accounting for delayed impacts using temporal lags, would be necessary to adequately address this question fully. These approaches offer fruitful avenues for further research but are beyond the scope of this manuscript, which primarily aims to explore the impacts of different climate conditions and their persistence.

Policy implications

We find that the economic damages resulting from climate change until 2049 are those to which the world economy is already committed and that these greatly outweigh the costs required to mitigate emissions in line with the 2 °C target of the Paris Climate Agreement (Fig. 1 ). This assessment is complementary to formal analyses of the net costs and benefits associated with moving from one emission path to another, which typically find that net benefits of mitigation only emerge in the second half of the century 5 . Our simple comparison of the magnitude of damages and mitigation costs makes clear that this is primarily because damages are indistinguishable across emissions scenarios—that is, committed—until mid-century (Fig. 1 ) and that they are actually already much larger than mitigation costs. For simplicity, and owing to the availability of data, we compare damages to mitigation costs at the global level. Regional estimates of mitigation costs may shed further light on the national incentives for mitigation to which our results already hint, of relevance for international climate policy. Although these damages are committed from a mitigation perspective, adaptation may provide an opportunity to reduce them. Moreover, the strong divergence of damages after mid-century reemphasizes the clear benefits of mitigation from a purely economic perspective, as highlighted in previous studies 1 , 4 , 6 , 24 .

Historical climate data

Historical daily 2-m temperature and precipitation totals (in mm) are obtained for the period 1979–2019 from the W5E5 database. The W5E5 dataset comes from ERA-5, a state-of-the-art reanalysis of historical observations, but has been bias-adjusted by applying version 2.0 of the WATCH Forcing Data to ERA-5 reanalysis data and precipitation data from version 2.3 of the Global Precipitation Climatology Project to better reflect ground-based measurements 49 , 50 , 51 . We obtain these data on a 0.5° × 0.5° grid from the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP) database. Notably, these historical data have been used to bias-adjust future climate projections from CMIP-6 (see the following section), ensuring consistency between the distribution of historical daily weather on which our empirical models were estimated and the climate projections used to estimate future damages. These data are publicly available from the ISIMIP database. See refs.  7 , 8 for robustness tests of the empirical models to the choice of climate data reanalysis products.

Future climate data

Daily 2-m temperature and precipitation totals (in mm) are taken from 21 climate models participating in CMIP-6 under a high (RCP8.5) and a low (RCP2.6) greenhouse gas emission scenario from 2015 to 2100. The data have been bias-adjusted and statistically downscaled to a common half-degree grid to reflect the historical distribution of daily temperature and precipitation of the W5E5 dataset using the trend-preserving method developed by the ISIMIP 50 , 52 . As such, the climate model data reproduce observed climatological patterns exceptionally well (Supplementary Table 5 ). Gridded data are publicly available from the ISIMIP database.

Historical economic data

Historical economic data come from the DOSE database of sub-national economic output 53 . We use a recent revision to the DOSE dataset that provides data across 83 countries, 1,660 sub-national regions with varying temporal coverage from 1960 to 2019. Sub-national units constitute the first administrative division below national, for example, states for the USA and provinces for China. Data come from measures of gross regional product per capita (GRPpc) or income per capita in local currencies, reflecting the values reported in national statistical agencies, yearbooks and, in some cases, academic literature. We follow previous literature 3 , 7 , 8 , 54 and assess real sub-national output per capita by first converting values from local currencies to US dollars to account for diverging national inflationary tendencies and then account for US inflation using a US deflator. Alternatively, one might first account for national inflation and then convert between currencies. Supplementary Fig. 12 demonstrates that our conclusions are consistent when accounting for price changes in the reversed order, although the magnitude of estimated damages varies. See the documentation of the DOSE dataset for further discussion of these choices. Conversions between currencies are conducted using exchange rates from the FRED database of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 55 and the national deflators from the World Bank 56 .

Future socio-economic data

Baseline gridded gross domestic product (GDP) and population data for the period 2015–2100 are taken from the middle-of-the-road scenario SSP2 (ref.  15 ). Population data have been downscaled to a half-degree grid by the ISIMIP following the methodologies of refs.  57 , 58 , which we then aggregate to the sub-national level of our economic data using the spatial aggregation procedure described below. Because current methodologies for downscaling the GDP of the SSPs use downscaled population to do so, per-capita estimates of GDP with a realistic distribution at the sub-national level are not readily available for the SSPs. We therefore use national-level GDP per capita (GDPpc) projections for all sub-national regions of a given country, assuming homogeneity within countries in terms of baseline GDPpc. Here we use projections that have been updated to account for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the trajectory of future income, while remaining consistent with the long-term development of the SSPs 59 . The choice of baseline SSP alters the magnitude of projected climate damages in monetary terms, but when assessed in terms of percentage change from the baseline, the choice of socio-economic scenario is inconsequential. Gridded SSP population data and national-level GDPpc data are publicly available from the ISIMIP database. Sub-national estimates as used in this study are available in the code and data replication files.

Climate variables

Following recent literature 3 , 7 , 8 , we calculate an array of climate variables for which substantial impacts on macroeconomic output have been identified empirically, supported by further evidence at the micro level for plausible underlying mechanisms. See refs.  7 , 8 for an extensive motivation for the use of these particular climate variables and for detailed empirical tests on the nature and robustness of their effects on economic output. To summarize, these studies have found evidence for independent impacts on economic growth rates from annual average temperature, daily temperature variability, total annual precipitation, the annual number of wet days and extreme daily rainfall. Assessments of daily temperature variability were motivated by evidence of impacts on agricultural output and human health, as well as macroeconomic literature on the impacts of volatility on growth when manifest in different dimensions, such as government spending, exchange rates and even output itself 7 . Assessments of precipitation impacts were motivated by evidence of impacts on agricultural productivity, metropolitan labour outcomes and conflict, as well as damages caused by flash flooding 8 . See Extended Data Table 1 for detailed references to empirical studies of these physical mechanisms. Marked impacts of daily temperature variability, total annual precipitation, the number of wet days and extreme daily rainfall on macroeconomic output were identified robustly across different climate datasets, spatial aggregation schemes, specifications of regional time trends and error-clustering approaches. They were also found to be robust to the consideration of temperature extremes 7 , 8 . Furthermore, these climate variables were identified as having independent effects on economic output 7 , 8 , which we further explain here using Monte Carlo simulations to demonstrate the robustness of the results to concerns of imperfect multicollinearity between climate variables (Supplementary Methods Section  2 ), as well as by using information criteria (Supplementary Table 1 ) to demonstrate that including several lagged climate variables provides a preferable trade-off between optimally describing the data and limiting the possibility of overfitting.

We calculate these variables from the distribution of daily, d , temperature, T x , d , and precipitation, P x , d , at the grid-cell, x , level for both the historical and future climate data. As well as annual mean temperature, \({\bar{T}}_{x,y}\) , and annual total precipitation, P x , y , we calculate annual, y , measures of daily temperature variability, \({\widetilde{T}}_{x,y}\) :

the number of wet days, Pwd x , y :

and extreme daily rainfall:

in which T x , d , m , y is the grid-cell-specific daily temperature in month m and year y , \({\bar{T}}_{x,m,{y}}\) is the year and grid-cell-specific monthly, m , mean temperature, D m and D y the number of days in a given month m or year y , respectively, H the Heaviside step function, 1 mm the threshold used to define wet days and P 99.9 x is the 99.9th percentile of historical (1979–2019) daily precipitation at the grid-cell level. Units of the climate measures are degrees Celsius for annual mean temperature and daily temperature variability, millimetres for total annual precipitation and extreme daily precipitation, and simply the number of days for the annual number of wet days.

We also calculated weighted standard deviations of monthly rainfall totals as also used in ref.  8 but do not include them in our projections as we find that, when accounting for delayed effects, their effect becomes statistically indistinct and is better captured by changes in total annual rainfall.

Spatial aggregation

We aggregate grid-cell-level historical and future climate measures, as well as grid-cell-level future GDPpc and population, to the level of the first administrative unit below national level of the GADM database, using an area-weighting algorithm that estimates the portion of each grid cell falling within an administrative boundary. We use this as our baseline specification following previous findings that the effect of area or population weighting at the sub-national level is negligible 7 , 8 .

Empirical model specification: fixed-effects distributed lag models

Following a wide range of climate econometric literature 16 , 60 , we use panel regression models with a selection of fixed effects and time trends to isolate plausibly exogenous variation with which to maximize confidence in a causal interpretation of the effects of climate on economic growth rates. The use of region fixed effects, μ r , accounts for unobserved time-invariant differences between regions, such as prevailing climatic norms and growth rates owing to historical and geopolitical factors. The use of yearly fixed effects, η y , accounts for regionally invariant annual shocks to the global climate or economy such as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation or global recessions. In our baseline specification, we also include region-specific linear time trends, k r y , to exclude the possibility of spurious correlations resulting from common slow-moving trends in climate and growth.

The persistence of climate impacts on economic growth rates is a key determinant of the long-term magnitude of damages. Methods for inferring the extent of persistence in impacts on growth rates have typically used lagged climate variables to evaluate the presence of delayed effects or catch-up dynamics 2 , 18 . For example, consider starting from a model in which a climate condition, C r , y , (for example, annual mean temperature) affects the growth rate, Δlgrp r , y (the first difference of the logarithm of gross regional product) of region r in year y :

which we refer to as a ‘pure growth effects’ model in the main text. Typically, further lags are included,

and the cumulative effect of all lagged terms is evaluated to assess the extent to which climate impacts on growth rates persist. Following ref.  18 , in the case that,

the implication is that impacts on the growth rate persist up to NL years after the initial shock (possibly to a weaker or a stronger extent), whereas if

then the initial impact on the growth rate is recovered after NL years and the effect is only one on the level of output. However, we note that such approaches are limited by the fact that, when including an insufficient number of lags to detect a recovery of the growth rates, one may find equation ( 6 ) to be satisfied and incorrectly assume that a change in climatic conditions affects the growth rate indefinitely. In practice, given a limited record of historical data, including too few lags to confidently conclude in an infinitely persistent impact on the growth rate is likely, particularly over the long timescales over which future climate damages are often projected 2 , 24 . To avoid this issue, we instead begin our analysis with a model for which the level of output, lgrp r , y , depends on the level of a climate variable, C r , y :

Given the non-stationarity of the level of output, we follow the literature 19 and estimate such an equation in first-differenced form as,

which we refer to as a model of ‘pure level effects’ in the main text. This model constitutes a baseline specification in which a permanent change in the climate variable produces an instantaneous impact on the growth rate and a permanent effect only on the level of output. By including lagged variables in this specification,

we are able to test whether the impacts on the growth rate persist any further than instantaneously by evaluating whether α L  > 0 are statistically significantly different from zero. Even though this framework is also limited by the possibility of including too few lags, the choice of a baseline model specification in which impacts on the growth rate do not persist means that, in the case of including too few lags, the framework reverts to the baseline specification of level effects. As such, this framework is conservative with respect to the persistence of impacts and the magnitude of future damages. It naturally avoids assumptions of infinite persistence and we are able to interpret any persistence that we identify with equation ( 9 ) as a lower bound on the extent of climate impact persistence on growth rates. See the main text for further discussion of this specification choice, in particular about its conservative nature compared with previous literature estimates, such as refs.  2 , 18 .

We allow the response to climatic changes to vary across regions, using interactions of the climate variables with historical average (1979–2019) climatic conditions reflecting heterogenous effects identified in previous work 7 , 8 . Following this previous work, the moderating variables of these interaction terms constitute the historical average of either the variable itself or of the seasonal temperature difference, \({\hat{T}}_{r}\) , or annual mean temperature, \({\bar{T}}_{r}\) , in the case of daily temperature variability 7 and extreme daily rainfall, respectively 8 .

The resulting regression equation with N and M lagged variables, respectively, reads:

in which Δlgrp r , y is the annual, regional GRPpc growth rate, measured as the first difference of the logarithm of real GRPpc, following previous work 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 18 , 19 . Fixed-effects regressions were run using the fixest package in R (ref.  61 ).

Estimates of the coefficients of interest α i , L are shown in Extended Data Fig. 1 for N  =  M  = 10 lags and for our preferred choice of the number of lags in Supplementary Figs. 1 – 3 . In Extended Data Fig. 1 , errors are shown clustered at the regional level, but for the construction of damage projections, we block-bootstrap the regressions by region 1,000 times to provide a range of parameter estimates with which to sample the projection uncertainty (following refs.  2 , 31 ).

Spatial-lag model

In Supplementary Fig. 14 , we present the results from a spatial-lag model that explores the potential for climate impacts to ‘spill over’ into spatially neighbouring regions. We measure the distance between centroids of each pair of sub-national regions and construct spatial lags that take the average of the first-differenced climate variables and their interaction terms over neighbouring regions that are at distances of 0–500, 500–1,000, 1,000–1,500 and 1,500–2000 km (spatial lags, ‘SL’, 1 to 4). For simplicity, we then assess a spatial-lag model without temporal lags to assess spatial spillovers of contemporaneous climate impacts. This model takes the form:

in which SL indicates the spatial lag of each climate variable and interaction term. In Supplementary Fig. 14 , we plot the cumulative marginal effect of each climate variable at different baseline climate conditions by summing the coefficients for each climate variable and interaction term, for example, for average temperature impacts as:

These cumulative marginal effects can be regarded as the overall spatially dependent impact to an individual region given a one-unit shock to a climate variable in that region and all neighbouring regions at a given value of the moderating variable of the interaction term.

Constructing projections of economic damage from future climate change

We construct projections of future climate damages by applying the coefficients estimated in equation ( 10 ) and shown in Supplementary Tables 2 – 4 (when including only lags with statistically significant effects in specifications that limit overfitting; see Supplementary Methods Section  1 ) to projections of future climate change from the CMIP-6 models. Year-on-year changes in each primary climate variable of interest are calculated to reflect the year-to-year variations used in the empirical models. 30-year moving averages of the moderating variables of the interaction terms are calculated to reflect the long-term average of climatic conditions that were used for the moderating variables in the empirical models. By using moving averages in the projections, we account for the changing vulnerability to climate shocks based on the evolving long-term conditions (Supplementary Figs. 10 and 11 show that the results are robust to the precise choice of the window of this moving average). Although these climate variables are not differenced, the fact that the bias-adjusted climate models reproduce observed climatological patterns across regions for these moderating variables very accurately (Supplementary Table 6 ) with limited spread across models (<3%) precludes the possibility that any considerable bias or uncertainty is introduced by this methodological choice. However, we impose caps on these moderating variables at the 95th percentile at which they were observed in the historical data to prevent extrapolation of the marginal effects outside the range in which the regressions were estimated. This is a conservative choice that limits the magnitude of our damage projections.

Time series of primary climate variables and moderating climate variables are then combined with estimates of the empirical model parameters to evaluate the regression coefficients in equation ( 10 ), producing a time series of annual GRPpc growth-rate reductions for a given emission scenario, climate model and set of empirical model parameters. The resulting time series of growth-rate impacts reflects those occurring owing to future climate change. By contrast, a future scenario with no climate change would be one in which climate variables do not change (other than with random year-to-year fluctuations) and hence the time-averaged evaluation of equation ( 10 ) would be zero. Our approach therefore implicitly compares the future climate-change scenario to this no-climate-change baseline scenario.

The time series of growth-rate impacts owing to future climate change in region r and year y , δ r , y , are then added to the future baseline growth rates, π r , y (in log-diff form), obtained from the SSP2 scenario to yield trajectories of damaged GRPpc growth rates, ρ r , y . These trajectories are aggregated over time to estimate the future trajectory of GRPpc with future climate impacts:

in which GRPpc r , y =2020 is the initial log level of GRPpc. We begin damage estimates in 2020 to reflect the damages occurring since the end of the period for which we estimate the empirical models (1979–2019) and to match the timing of mitigation-cost estimates from most IAMs (see below).

For each emission scenario, this procedure is repeated 1,000 times while randomly sampling from the selection of climate models, the selection of empirical models with different numbers of lags (shown in Supplementary Figs. 1 – 3 and Supplementary Tables 2 – 4 ) and bootstrapped estimates of the regression parameters. The result is an ensemble of future GRPpc trajectories that reflect uncertainty from both physical climate change and the structural and sampling uncertainty of the empirical models.

Estimates of mitigation costs

We obtain IPCC estimates of the aggregate costs of emission mitigation from the AR6 Scenario Explorer and Database hosted by IIASA 23 . Specifically, we search the AR6 Scenarios Database World v1.1 for IAMs that provided estimates of global GDP and population under both a SSP2 baseline and a SSP2-RCP2.6 scenario to maintain consistency with the socio-economic and emission scenarios of the climate damage projections. We find five IAMs that provide data for these scenarios, namely, MESSAGE-GLOBIOM 1.0, REMIND-MAgPIE 1.5, AIM/GCE 2.0, GCAM 4.2 and WITCH-GLOBIOM 3.1. Of these five IAMs, we use the results only from the first three that passed the IPCC vetting procedure for reproducing historical emission and climate trajectories. We then estimate global mitigation costs as the percentage difference in global per capita GDP between the SSP2 baseline and the SSP2-RCP2.6 emission scenario. In the case of one of these IAMs, estimates of mitigation costs begin in 2020, whereas in the case of two others, mitigation costs begin in 2010. The mitigation cost estimates before 2020 in these two IAMs are mostly negligible, and our choice to begin comparison with damage estimates in 2020 is conservative with respect to the relative weight of climate damages compared with mitigation costs for these two IAMs.

Data availability

Data on economic production and ERA-5 climate data are publicly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4681306 (ref. 62 ) and https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts/datasets/reanalysis-datasets/era5 , respectively. Data on mitigation costs are publicly available at https://data.ene.iiasa.ac.at/ar6/#/downloads . Processed climate and economic data, as well as all other necessary data for reproduction of the results, are available at the public repository https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10562951  (ref. 63 ).

Code availability

All code necessary for reproduction of the results is available at the public repository https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10562951  (ref. 63 ).

Glanemann, N., Willner, S. N. & Levermann, A. Paris Climate Agreement passes the cost-benefit test. Nat. Commun. 11 , 110 (2020).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Burke, M., Hsiang, S. M. & Miguel, E. Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production. Nature 527 , 235–239 (2015).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kalkuhl, M. & Wenz, L. The impact of climate conditions on economic production. Evidence from a global panel of regions. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 103 , 102360 (2020).

Article   Google Scholar  

Moore, F. C. & Diaz, D. B. Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Change 5 , 127–131 (2015).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Drouet, L., Bosetti, V. & Tavoni, M. Net economic benefits of well-below 2°C scenarios and associated uncertainties. Oxf. Open Clim. Change 2 , kgac003 (2022).

Ueckerdt, F. et al. The economically optimal warming limit of the planet. Earth Syst. Dyn. 10 , 741–763 (2019).

Kotz, M., Wenz, L., Stechemesser, A., Kalkuhl, M. & Levermann, A. Day-to-day temperature variability reduces economic growth. Nat. Clim. Change 11 , 319–325 (2021).

Kotz, M., Levermann, A. & Wenz, L. The effect of rainfall changes on economic production. Nature 601 , 223–227 (2022).

Kousky, C. Informing climate adaptation: a review of the economic costs of natural disasters. Energy Econ. 46 , 576–592 (2014).

Harlan, S. L. et al. in Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives (eds Dunlap, R. E. & Brulle, R. J.) 127–163 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2015).

Bolton, P. et al. The Green Swan (BIS Books, 2020).

Alogoskoufis, S. et al. ECB Economy-wide Climate Stress Test: Methodology and Results European Central Bank, 2021).

Weber, E. U. What shapes perceptions of climate change? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 1 , 332–342 (2010).

Markowitz, E. M. & Shariff, A. F. Climate change and moral judgement. Nat. Clim. Change 2 , 243–247 (2012).

Riahi, K. et al. The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42 , 153–168 (2017).

Auffhammer, M., Hsiang, S. M., Schlenker, W. & Sobel, A. Using weather data and climate model output in economic analyses of climate change. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 7 , 181–198 (2013).

Kolstad, C. D. & Moore, F. C. Estimating the economic impacts of climate change using weather observations. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 14 , 1–24 (2020).

Dell, M., Jones, B. F. & Olken, B. A. Temperature shocks and economic growth: evidence from the last half century. Am. Econ. J. Macroecon. 4 , 66–95 (2012).

Newell, R. G., Prest, B. C. & Sexton, S. E. The GDP-temperature relationship: implications for climate change damages. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 108 , 102445 (2021).

Kikstra, J. S. et al. The social cost of carbon dioxide under climate-economy feedbacks and temperature variability. Environ. Res. Lett. 16 , 094037 (2021).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bastien-Olvera, B. & Moore, F. Persistent effect of temperature on GDP identified from lower frequency temperature variability. Environ. Res. Lett. 17 , 084038 (2022).

Eyring, V. et al. Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model Dev. 9 , 1937–1958 (2016).

Byers, E. et al. AR6 scenarios database. Zenodo https://zenodo.org/records/7197970 (2022).

Burke, M., Davis, W. M. & Diffenbaugh, N. S. Large potential reduction in economic damages under UN mitigation targets. Nature 557 , 549–553 (2018).

Kotz, M., Wenz, L. & Levermann, A. Footprint of greenhouse forcing in daily temperature variability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 118 , e2103294118 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Myhre, G. et al. Frequency of extreme precipitation increases extensively with event rareness under global warming. Sci. Rep. 9 , 16063 (2019).

Min, S.-K., Zhang, X., Zwiers, F. W. & Hegerl, G. C. Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes. Nature 470 , 378–381 (2011).

England, M. R., Eisenman, I., Lutsko, N. J. & Wagner, T. J. The recent emergence of Arctic Amplification. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48 , e2021GL094086 (2021).

Fischer, E. M. & Knutti, R. Anthropogenic contribution to global occurrence of heavy-precipitation and high-temperature extremes. Nat. Clim. Change 5 , 560–564 (2015).

Pfahl, S., O’Gorman, P. A. & Fischer, E. M. Understanding the regional pattern of projected future changes in extreme precipitation. Nat. Clim. Change 7 , 423–427 (2017).

Callahan, C. W. & Mankin, J. S. Globally unequal effect of extreme heat on economic growth. Sci. Adv. 8 , eadd3726 (2022).

Diffenbaugh, N. S. & Burke, M. Global warming has increased global economic inequality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 116 , 9808–9813 (2019).

Callahan, C. W. & Mankin, J. S. National attribution of historical climate damages. Clim. Change 172 , 40 (2022).

Burke, M. & Tanutama, V. Climatic constraints on aggregate economic output. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 25779. https://doi.org/10.3386/w25779 (2019).

Kahn, M. E. et al. Long-term macroeconomic effects of climate change: a cross-country analysis. Energy Econ. 104 , 105624 (2021).

Desmet, K. et al. Evaluating the economic cost of coastal flooding. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 24918. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24918 (2018).

Hsiang, S. M. & Jina, A. S. The causal effect of environmental catastrophe on long-run economic growth: evidence from 6,700 cyclones. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 20352. https://doi.org/10.3386/w2035 (2014).

Ritchie, P. D. et al. Shifts in national land use and food production in Great Britain after a climate tipping point. Nat. Food 1 , 76–83 (2020).

Dietz, S., Rising, J., Stoerk, T. & Wagner, G. Economic impacts of tipping points in the climate system. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 118 , e2103081118 (2021).

Bastien-Olvera, B. A. & Moore, F. C. Use and non-use value of nature and the social cost of carbon. Nat. Sustain. 4 , 101–108 (2021).

Carleton, T. et al. Valuing the global mortality consequences of climate change accounting for adaptation costs and benefits. Q. J. Econ. 137 , 2037–2105 (2022).

Bastien-Olvera, B. A. et al. Unequal climate impacts on global values of natural capital. Nature 625 , 722–727 (2024).

Malik, A. et al. Impacts of climate change and extreme weather on food supply chains cascade across sectors and regions in Australia. Nat. Food 3 , 631–643 (2022).

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kuhla, K., Willner, S. N., Otto, C., Geiger, T. & Levermann, A. Ripple resonance amplifies economic welfare loss from weather extremes. Environ. Res. Lett. 16 , 114010 (2021).

Schleypen, J. R., Mistry, M. N., Saeed, F. & Dasgupta, S. Sharing the burden: quantifying climate change spillovers in the European Union under the Paris Agreement. Spat. Econ. Anal. 17 , 67–82 (2022).

Dasgupta, S., Bosello, F., De Cian, E. & Mistry, M. Global temperature effects on economic activity and equity: a spatial analysis. European Institute on Economics and the Environment, Working Paper 22-1 (2022).

Neal, T. The importance of external weather effects in projecting the macroeconomic impacts of climate change. UNSW Economics Working Paper 2023-09 (2023).

Deryugina, T. & Hsiang, S. M. Does the environment still matter? Daily temperature and income in the United States. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 20750. https://doi.org/10.3386/w20750 (2014).

Hersbach, H. et al. The ERA5 global reanalysis. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 146 , 1999–2049 (2020).

Cucchi, M. et al. WFDE5: bias-adjusted ERA5 reanalysis data for impact studies. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12 , 2097–2120 (2020).

Adler, R. et al. The New Version 2.3 of the Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Monthly Analysis Product 1072–1084 (University of Maryland, 2016).

Lange, S. Trend-preserving bias adjustment and statistical downscaling with ISIMIP3BASD (v1.0). Geosci. Model Dev. 12 , 3055–3070 (2019).

Wenz, L., Carr, R. D., Kögel, N., Kotz, M. & Kalkuhl, M. DOSE – global data set of reported sub-national economic output. Sci. Data 10 , 425 (2023).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gennaioli, N., La Porta, R., Lopez De Silanes, F. & Shleifer, A. Growth in regions. J. Econ. Growth 19 , 259–309 (2014).

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US). U.S. dollars to euro spot exchange rate. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AEXUSEU (2022).

World Bank. GDP deflator. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.DEFL.ZS (2022).

Jones, B. & O’Neill, B. C. Spatially explicit global population scenarios consistent with the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Environ. Res. Lett. 11 , 084003 (2016).

Murakami, D. & Yamagata, Y. Estimation of gridded population and GDP scenarios with spatially explicit statistical downscaling. Sustainability 11 , 2106 (2019).

Koch, J. & Leimbach, M. Update of SSP GDP projections: capturing recent changes in national accounting, PPP conversion and Covid 19 impacts. Ecol. Econ. 206 (2023).

Carleton, T. A. & Hsiang, S. M. Social and economic impacts of climate. Science 353 , aad9837 (2016).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bergé, L. Efficient estimation of maximum likelihood models with multiple fixed-effects: the R package FENmlm. DEM Discussion Paper Series 18-13 (2018).

Kalkuhl, M., Kotz, M. & Wenz, L. DOSE - The MCC-PIK Database Of Subnational Economic output. Zenodo https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.4681305 (2021).

Kotz, M., Wenz, L. & Levermann, A. Data and code for “The economic commitment of climate change”. Zenodo https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10562951 (2024).

Dasgupta, S. et al. Effects of climate change on combined labour productivity and supply: an empirical, multi-model study. Lancet Planet. Health 5 , e455–e465 (2021).

Lobell, D. B. et al. The critical role of extreme heat for maize production in the United States. Nat. Clim. Change 3 , 497–501 (2013).

Zhao, C. et al. Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 114 , 9326–9331 (2017).

Wheeler, T. R., Craufurd, P. Q., Ellis, R. H., Porter, J. R. & Prasad, P. V. Temperature variability and the yield of annual crops. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 82 , 159–167 (2000).

Rowhani, P., Lobell, D. B., Linderman, M. & Ramankutty, N. Climate variability and crop production in Tanzania. Agric. For. Meteorol. 151 , 449–460 (2011).

Ceglar, A., Toreti, A., Lecerf, R., Van der Velde, M. & Dentener, F. Impact of meteorological drivers on regional inter-annual crop yield variability in France. Agric. For. Meteorol. 216 , 58–67 (2016).

Shi, L., Kloog, I., Zanobetti, A., Liu, P. & Schwartz, J. D. Impacts of temperature and its variability on mortality in New England. Nat. Clim. Change 5 , 988–991 (2015).

Xue, T., Zhu, T., Zheng, Y. & Zhang, Q. Declines in mental health associated with air pollution and temperature variability in China. Nat. Commun. 10 , 2165 (2019).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Liang, X.-Z. et al. Determining climate effects on US total agricultural productivity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 114 , E2285–E2292 (2017).

Desbureaux, S. & Rodella, A.-S. Drought in the city: the economic impact of water scarcity in Latin American metropolitan areas. World Dev. 114 , 13–27 (2019).

Damania, R. The economics of water scarcity and variability. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 36 , 24–44 (2020).

Davenport, F. V., Burke, M. & Diffenbaugh, N. S. Contribution of historical precipitation change to US flood damages. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 118 , e2017524118 (2021).

Dave, R., Subramanian, S. S. & Bhatia, U. Extreme precipitation induced concurrent events trigger prolonged disruptions in regional road networks. Environ. Res. Lett. 16 , 104050 (2021).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge financing from the Volkswagen Foundation and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH on behalf of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).

Open access funding provided by Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolgenforschung (PIK) e.V.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Research Domain IV, Research Domain IV, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany

Maximilian Kotz, Anders Levermann & Leonie Wenz

Institute of Physics, Potsdam University, Potsdam, Germany

Maximilian Kotz & Anders Levermann

Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany

Leonie Wenz

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the design of the analysis. M.K. conducted the analysis and produced the figures. All authors contributed to the interpretation and presentation of the results. M.K. and L.W. wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonie Wenz .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature thanks Xin-Zhong Liang, Chad Thackeray and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended data fig. 1 constraining the persistence of historical climate impacts on economic growth rates..

The results of a panel-based fixed-effects distributed lag model for the effects of annual mean temperature ( a ), daily temperature variability ( b ), total annual precipitation ( c ), the number of wet days ( d ) and extreme daily precipitation ( e ) on sub-national economic growth rates. Point estimates show the effects of a 1 °C or one standard deviation increase (for temperature and precipitation variables, respectively) at the lower quartile, median and upper quartile of the relevant moderating variable (green, orange and purple, respectively) at different lagged periods after the initial shock (note that these are not cumulative effects). Climate variables are used in their first-differenced form (see main text for discussion) and the moderating climate variables are the annual mean temperature, seasonal temperature difference, total annual precipitation, number of wet days and annual mean temperature, respectively, in panels a – e (see Methods for further discussion). Error bars show the 95% confidence intervals having clustered standard errors by region. The within-region R 2 , Bayesian and Akaike information criteria for the model are shown at the top of the figure. This figure shows results with ten lags for each variable to demonstrate the observed levels of persistence, but our preferred specifications remove later lags based on the statistical significance of terms shown above and the information criteria shown in Extended Data Fig. 2 . The resulting models without later lags are shown in Supplementary Figs. 1 – 3 .

Extended Data Fig. 2 Incremental lag-selection procedure using information criteria and within-region R 2 .

Starting from a panel-based fixed-effects distributed lag model estimating the effects of climate on economic growth using the real historical data (as in equation ( 4 )) with ten lags for all climate variables (as shown in Extended Data Fig. 1 ), lags are incrementally removed for one climate variable at a time. The resulting Bayesian and Akaike information criteria are shown in a – e and f – j , respectively, and the within-region R 2 and number of observations in k – o and p – t , respectively. Different rows show the results when removing lags from different climate variables, ordered from top to bottom as annual mean temperature, daily temperature variability, total annual precipitation, the number of wet days and extreme annual precipitation. Information criteria show minima at approximately four lags for precipitation variables and ten to eight for temperature variables, indicating that including these numbers of lags does not lead to overfitting. See Supplementary Table 1 for an assessment using information criteria to determine whether including further climate variables causes overfitting.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Damages in our preferred specification that provides a robust lower bound on the persistence of climate impacts on economic growth versus damages in specifications of pure growth or pure level effects.

Estimates of future damages as shown in Fig. 1 but under the emission scenario RCP8.5 for three separate empirical specifications: in orange our preferred specification, which provides an empirical lower bound on the persistence of climate impacts on economic growth rates while avoiding assumptions of infinite persistence (see main text for further discussion); in purple a specification of ‘pure growth effects’ in which the first difference of climate variables is not taken and no lagged climate variables are included (the baseline specification of ref.  2 ); and in pink a specification of ‘pure level effects’ in which the first difference of climate variables is taken but no lagged terms are included.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Climate changes in different variables as a function of historical interannual variability.

Changes in each climate variable of interest from 1979–2019 to 2035–2065 under the high-emission scenario SSP5-RCP8.5, expressed as a percentage of the historical variability of each measure. Historical variability is estimated as the standard deviation of each detrended climate variable over the period 1979–2019 during which the empirical models were identified (detrending is appropriate because of the inclusion of region-specific linear time trends in the empirical models). See Supplementary Fig. 13 for changes expressed in standard units. Data on national administrative boundaries are obtained from the GADM database version 3.6 and are freely available for academic use ( https://gadm.org/ ).

Extended Data Fig. 5 Contribution of different climate variables to overall committed damages.

a , Climate damages in 2049 when using empirical models that account for all climate variables, changes in annual mean temperature only or changes in both annual mean temperature and one other climate variable (daily temperature variability, total annual precipitation, the number of wet days and extreme daily precipitation, respectively). b , The cumulative marginal effects of an increase in annual mean temperature of 1 °C, at different baseline temperatures, estimated from empirical models including all climate variables or annual mean temperature only. Estimates and uncertainty bars represent the median and 95% confidence intervals obtained from 1,000 block-bootstrap resamples from each of three different empirical models using eight, nine or ten lags of temperature terms.

Extended Data Fig. 6 The difference in committed damages between the upper and lower quartiles of countries when ranked by GDP and cumulative historical emissions.

Quartiles are defined using a population weighting, as are the average committed damages across each quartile group. The violin plots indicate the distribution of differences between quartiles across the two extreme emission scenarios (RCP2.6 and RCP8.5) and the uncertainty sampling procedure outlined in Methods , which accounts for uncertainty arising from the choice of lags in the empirical models, uncertainty in the empirical model parameter estimates, as well as the climate model projections. Bars indicate the median, as well as the 10th and 90th percentiles and upper and lower sixths of the distribution reflecting the very likely and likely ranges following the likelihood classification adopted by the IPCC.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, peer review file, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kotz, M., Levermann, A. & Wenz, L. The economic commitment of climate change. Nature 628 , 551–557 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07219-0

Download citation

Received : 25 January 2023

Accepted : 21 February 2024

Published : 17 April 2024

Issue Date : 18 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07219-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Nanomaterials (Basel)

Advances in Nanotoxicology: Towards Enhanced Environmental and Physiological Relevance and Molecular Mechanisms

1 Laboratory of Environmental Toxicology, National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics (NICPB), Akadeemia Tee 23, 12618 Tallinn, Estonia

Monika Mortimer

2 Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences, College of Quality and Safety Engineering, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou 310018, China

Nanotoxicology, a discipline transpired by the need to assess the human and environmental safety of nanoscale materials, has evolved over the past 15 years into a mature area of toxicology. Early on, nanotoxicology studies established a necessary understanding of dose-response relationships of nanomaterials using typical in vitro toxicology models, provided crucial information on interferences induced by nanoparticles (NPs) in the conventional toxicity assays and how to overcome these, and demonstrated that due to their unique physical–chemical properties, nanomaterials act via different toxicological mechanisms than the bulk counterparts of the same materials. For example, ZnO, known as a water-insoluble compound in bulk form, was shown to exert toxicity through released Zn-ions in the case of ZnO NPs, and the cellular uptake pathways of NPs were discovered to depend on the size, shape, and surface properties of nanoscale particles. As the knowledge on NP toxicity mechanisms and behavior in the environment and organisms has accumulated, nanotoxicologists have acknowledged the need for improved understanding about the NP interactions with biological systems at the molecular level to better predict the potential toxicity of novel nanomaterials and ensure safe and sustainable development of nanotechnology.

Accordingly, recent trends in nanotoxicology include incorporation of high-throughput screening approaches to establish structure-activity relationships using libraries of NPs with different properties and in vitro screening assays combined with computational analysis; omics- approaches, including metabolomics, proteomics, and transcriptomics, to discover molecular-level effects of NPs at low, sub-lethal NP concentrations, and method development to include sensitive toxicity assays for early detection of toxic effects. Environmental nanotoxicology is moving towards the direction of enhancing the relevance of testing conditions (e.g., media composition, exposure concentrations, and duration) to these relevant to the environment and organism physiology, because NP toxicity has been proven to depend on the interactions with natural organic matter, anions and cations, the level of pH, and other environmental factors. Another major direction of nanotoxicology which has gained momentum in the recent years is the safety assessment of nanomaterials designed for applications in biotechnology, environmental bioremediation, wastewater treatment, agriculture, and nanomedicine. Thus, nanotoxicology has a substantial role not only in the risk assessment of unintentionally or intentionally produced nanomaterials but also in ensuring successful nanoinnovation across broad applications and enabling safe-by-design approach in nanotechnology.

This Special Issue covers a range of topics regarding the latest research trends in nanotoxicology. The collection includes 10 research articles and 5 reviews by authors from 16 countries, spanning four continents, which illustrates the global significance of nano-enabled technology and its safety assessment. It is worth noting that, in addition to guest editors who both are female scientists, most of the lead authors of the papers of this Special Issue are female scientist which is an important tendency in the STEM areas. The topics of the research articles and review papers address both environmental nanotoxicity as well as human health and nanomedicine safety aspects, providing an excellent overview of the current status of these important sub-areas of nanotoxicology.

The original research articles regarding environmental nanotoxicology address aspects that have been less explored in the nanotoxicology studies so far, such as combination toxicity and long-term toxicity of NPs. For example, Wang et al. investigated the toxicity of the binary mixture of TiO 2 nanospheres and TiO 2 nanotubes to two freshwater algae with different morphology [ 1 ]. They found that the combined toxicity of TiO 2 nano-spheres and nanotubes was different from the toxicity of single exposures and depended on the microalgal species. Aravantinou et al. assessed the long-term toxicity of ZnO NPs to microalgae using a modeled natural water treatment system with a semi-continuous supply of NPs [ 2 ]. A freshwater microalgal species Scenedesmus rubescens was used as a model due to its presence in municipal wastewater and its potential use for biofuel production. The study showed that low concentration (0.081 mg/L) of ZnO NPs, supplied at lower hydraulic retention time, slightly inhibited algal growth but enhanced the lipid content of S. rubescens , highlighting the need for further studies of NP-biota interactions in environmentally relevant conditions. The importance of considering the presence of natural organic matter in nanotoxicity studies has been well illustrated in the article by Bondarenko et al. who assessed the ecotoxicity of magnetite NPs in a plant and unicellular eukaryotic model, assessing the influence of humic acid on the toxicity of the NPs as well as Fe(II) and Fe(III) ions [ 3 ]. In another research article, Bondarenko et al. assessed the biological effects of magnetite NPs on bacteria and their enzymatic reactions and the role of humic substances and silica in biogeochemical cycling of iron. The article also proposes whole-cell and enzyme-based bioluminescence assays as convenient tools to evaluate bio-availability of Fe(III) in natural dispersions of iron-containing NPs [ 4 ]. Development of novel cell-based toxicity assays was also the focus of the article by Semerad et al. who addressed the issue of potential toxicity of NPs applied for remediation in soils and groundwater, to soil organisms [ 5 ]. They used amoebocytes, the immune effector cells of the earthworm Eisenia andrei , to study the toxicity mechanisms of nanoscale zero-valent iron (nZVI).

The method development and application of novel omics approaches, which can provide molecular-level information about NP biological effects, were also the focus of research articles regarding the human health and nanomedicine safety. Enea et al. applied an innovative and sensitive approach—metabolomics—to compare the in vivo toxicological effects of gold nanospheres versus gold nanostars of similar ~40 nm diameter, coated with 11-mercaptoundecanoic acid, 24 h after an intravenous administration to Wistar rats [ 6 ]. Using a metabolomic approach, different results were obtained with gold nanospheres and gold nanostars in the liver. Subtle changes were found at the molecular level that preceded the conventional toxicity symptoms and biochemical changes, allowing the discrimination between the effects of different Au NPs at subtoxic doses. In the future studies of Au NPs the authors recommend focusing on fatty acid synthesis and metabolism of pyrimidine and purine. In another research article, Tomonaga et al. propose cytokine-induced neutrophil chemoattractants CINC-1 and CINC-2 as early biomarkers for the prediction of pulmonary toxicity of NPs [ 7 ]. Nguyen et al., on the other hand, compared the performance of monolayer cell cultures versus multicellular tumor spheroids in estimating the highest tolerable dose of cancer medicines delivered by NPs [ 8 ]. They used superpara-magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) functionalized with mitoxantrone (MTO) for targeted delivery of the chemotherapeutic and demonstrated that multicellular tumor spheroids tolerated higher doses of NP-loaded MTO than monolayer cell culture. The study highlights the issues of using conventional monolayer cell cultures for drug dose predictions which may be inaccurate for in vivo applications. Geng and colleagues explored the mechanisms by which ultraviolet A (UVA) irradiation exacerbates TiO 2 NP toxicity, and specifically clarified the mechanism of cell death caused by the combined exposure to UVA and TiO 2 NPs [ 9 ]. They investigated the cytotoxicity and phototoxicity of mixture crystalline TiO 2 NPs (25% rutile and 75% anatase, 21 nm) under UVA irradiation in HeLa cells and showed that the abnormal membrane integrity and the ultrastructure of HeLa cells, together with the decreased viability induced by TiO 2 NPs under UVA irradiation, were due to cell necrosis rather than caspase-dependent apoptosis.

Several articles in the Special Issue discuss the beneficial properties on NPs and the associated mechanisms as well as safe environmental application of NPs. In their research paper, Sguizzato et al. report on the development of a formulation for caffeic acid cutaneous administration [ 10 ]. The nanoformulation has the benefits of easy cutaneous application and improved properties to combat inflammation, microbial infections, and carcinogenic effects. The review by Zhou et al. provides an overview and a synthesis of the published literature regarding the NP applications for plant stress alleviation and growth stimulation [ 11 ]. By discussing the mechanisms of interaction between NPs and heavy metals, the review provides valuable information for NP applications in phyto- and soil remediation as well as sustainable agriculture. Malhotra et al. review published data regarding the toxicity of Cu and Cu NPs in various fish species [ 12 ]. Since Cu-based formulations are widely applied as antifouling paints in underwater surfaces, understanding the toxicity and mechanisms of action of Cu NPs are crucial for establishing guidelines for the usage of these NPs in a sustainable manner.

Clinical applications of NPs and associated safety concerns have been discussed in three review articles. Mosselhy et al. review recent advances in nanotheranostics focusing on the issue of detecting methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and biofilm eradication in clinical settings [ 13 ]. The authors propose three action levels to quickly detect and combat the concerning issue of MRSA. The review by Damasco et al. discusses preclinical and clinical inorganic NPs utilized for cancer imaging and therapeutics [ 14 ]. A special emphasis is put on the rational design to develop non-toxic/safe inorganic NP constructs to increase their viability as translatable nanomedicine for cancer therapies. Lama et al. analyze the potential oral toxicity mechanisms of nanoformulations and describe recently reported in vitro and in vivo models that have been used to evaluate the oral toxicity of nanomedicines [ 15 ]. The authors also discuss approaches that may be used to develop nontoxic nanoformulations for oral drug delivery.

In summary, the article collection in this Special Issue addresses important recent trends in nanotoxicology, both from the environmental and human health safety aspects. The articles illustrate the directions where the toxicity studies of NPs (including various nanoformulations designed for applications in agriculture, bioremediation, and nanomedicine) are headed: employing novel and sensitive methods which provide molecular level information about the mechanisms of action of NPs, focusing on the NP-biomolecule interactions, development of biomarkers for early detection of NP toxicity, and guiding safe-by-design strategies for NPs.

Acknowledgments

The Guest Editors thank all the authors for submitting their work to this Special Issue and for contributing to its successful completion. A special thank you to all the reviewers participating in the peer-review process of the submitted manuscripts for enhancing their quality and impact. We are also grateful to Erika Zhao and the editorial assistants who made the entire Special Issue creation a smooth and efficient process, from inception to implementation and completion.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, M.M.; writing—review and editing, A.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

A.K. acknowledges funding from the European Regional Development Fond project TK134. M.M. acknowledges the support from the Key Laboratory of Biomedical Effects of Nanomaterials and Nanosafety, Chinese Academy of Sciences (NSKF202001).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.