MAGICC calculator reveals that cuts in carbon emissions will reduce ‘warming’ by a fraction of a degree Celsius, while globally costing trillions of dollars.
By Paul MacRae, Climate Realists of B.C., May 26, 2026
Summary
The IPCC’s MAGICC model shows that even with a 100% reduction in carbon emissions by developed nations, global warming would only be reduced by a minuscule 0.13°C by 2050. This tiny reduction comes at a staggering cost, with a McKinsey study estimating US$275 trillion globally by 2050. Instead of focusing on carbon taxes, we should be using our fossil-fuel wealth to develop adaptation strategies and gradually, over several decades, transition to other energy sources.
If any proof was needed that carbon taxes, “world-class” or otherwise, will have any useful or even measurable effect on today’s warming temperatures, and therefore reduce forest fires, or heatwaves, or any other climate-related issue, we only have to look at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s own calculations.
The IPCC has a model called MAGICC (Model for Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change) that calculates how much warming would be prevented by a given reduction in CO2 emissions. The calculator is available online at https://calculators.heritage.org/climate/calculate-the-temperature-changes-for-alternative-carbon-dioxide-reduction-policies/.
As Figure 1 shows, the calculator offers several variables, including the end year (2050 or 2100); how sensitive the climate is to a doubling of carbon dioxide (from 2°Celsius to 5°C); and how much the developed nations reduce their carbon emissions (from 20 per cent to 100 per cent).
Only the U.S. and European Union are included in the calculator because less-developed nations like high-emitting China and India are not required to reduce emissions until they feel they have achieved “developed” status, which will likely be “never”.
So, in the Figure 1 example, if by 2100 the developed nations had reduced emissions by a huge 40 per cent (not realistic, but if), and the climate sensitivity was a fairly high 3°C, global temperatures would be reduced by 0.09°C, a temperature too low to be detected by the human body.
Let’s go crazy and assume that the developed world reduced emissions by (an impossible) 100 per cent by 2050 (in other words, we would have achieved something close to Net Zero). As Figure 2 shows, at the absolute maximum, by 2050 our carbon curbs would have prevented a tiny 0.13°C of warming, which is also not detectible by the human body.
Again, 100 per cent cut in emissions is not possible (unless we all want to go back to the Stone Age). Even a 20 per cent cut in emissions is unrealistic. For example, by 2035, Canada aims to reduce its carbon emissions by 45 per cent from 2005 levels. However, from 2005 to 2023, Canada’s emissions fell by only 8.5 per cent 1. How likely is Canada to reach a 20 per cent reduction, much less 45? Or the Net Zero target of 100? Well into fantasy territory. And the same is true for carbon cuts by the U.S. and European Union.
With this calculator you can see for yourself that the carbon taxes that Canada’s Liberal governments (Justin Trudeau and Mark Carney) have imposed and wish to increase will have, in effect, zero impact on climate.
Canada’s share of global carbon emissions is only 1.5 per cent, as Figure 3 shows, so doing the math, Canada’s efforts would reduce “global warming” by an infinitesimal 0.00195°C.
B.C. emits about .1 per cent of global emissions, so under the same Figure 2 scenario, using the MAGICC calculator, even if the province reduced carbon emissions by 100 per cent, “global warming” would be reduced by 0.00013°C.
However, achieving these microscopically small reductions in temperature will cost Canadians a big chunk of our prosperity.
Reducing temperatures a fraction of a degree will cost trillions
How much are we willing to spend to achieve these minuscule reductions in warming?
A 2022 McKinsey Global Institute study estimated US$275 trillion globally by 2050, with the goal of keeping the temperature increase from pre-industrial times (the mid-1800s) to 1.5°C (or at most 2°C).2
As Figure 2 shows, the maximum reduction in temperature by 2050, assuming all developed nations reached Net Zero by that year, would be 0.13°C (and realistically much, much less). Spending trillions to produce a reduction in warming this tiny makes no economic or climate sense.
Closer to home, the B.C. government’s own calculations show that its CleanBC climate “roadmap” would reduce the province’s GDP by $28 billion in 2030, compared to the GDP without CleanBC.1
If B.C.’s GDP is cut by $28 billion, then in 2030, each of B.C.’s four million citizens would be poorer by about $7,000. How many of us are willing to take a hit of $28,000 a year for a family of four to stop a maximum of 0.13°C of warming (and realistically much, much less)? Any takers?
If you want to embarrass a B.C. government (or any government) official, just ask them how much this billions in climate spending and billions in lost GDP will actually reduce the temperature increase (a.k.a., “global warming”). Your chances of getting a sensible reply are very low, primarily because a temperature reduction this low, if openly admitted, will expose the government’s climate plans as clearly ridiculous. So government officials hope no one will ask….
There is a better approach than trying to stifle the fossil-fuel economy through carbon taxes, which will cost trillions of dollars globally for an imperceptible effect on “global warming.” Instead, we should be using the energy of fossil fuels and the wealth they generate to develop policies and engineering solutions that will allow us to adapt to a warmer climate, while gradually and naturally shifting over the next century to other forms of energy (almost certainly nuclear). Making ourselves poorer is absolutely the worst possible strategy to cope with climate change!
- Ken Peacock & Denise Mullen, “Government’s own modelling shows its CleanBC plan will dampen economic growth and set B.C.’s prosperity back more than a decade.” Business Council of B.C., Aug. 9, 2023. See https://climaterealists.ca/ndps-own-models-show-cleanbc-policy-will-damage-economic-growth-a-lot/ [↩]