Argues for including animal welfare in climate models, suggesting ethical implications for both ecosystems and humanity.
Integrated assessment models (IAMs) exclude individual non-human animal welfare, despite clear evidence that climate change will harm billions of animals through habitat loss, extreme weather, and ecosystem disruption. We argue that this is a significant moral oversight. Further, incorporating animal welfare into IAMs is technically feasible, using traditional economic methods or novel ones. Crucially, accounting for animal welfare in IAMs need not undermine considerations of justice for humans.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Palmer et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: