Climate Change Can Take Big Toll on Asian Economies, Inaction Could Cost More, ADB Report Says

Countries in Asia-Pacific will need to spend big to adapt to climate change. But the cost of inaction could be higher, according to a new report by the Asian Development Bank.

Left unchecked, climate change could punch a 17%-sized hole in the region’s economic growth over the next decades, the Manila-based bank said Thursday.

“The window to stay within the 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement is rapidly closing,” the ADB said.

The international treaty aims to limit the average rise in global temperatures to that threshold, beyond which experts expect climate change to have increasingly disastrous consequences. In the nine years since the agreement was adopted, inaction has put that goal nearly out of reach, the multilateral bank said.

With greenhouse-gas emissions reaching record highs, nations need to dramatically increase—and immediately start delivering—efforts to get on track for 1.5°C, a United Nations Environment Programme report said last week. Failure to do so will lead to debilitating impacts to economies, the report said.

Asia-Pacific’s position in the climate crisis is a tricky one: it’s both home to some of the most vulnerable economies and a major polluter, contributing over 50% of global GHG emissions.

If emissions breach critical levels, ADB estimates climate change could reduce Asia-Pacific’s gross domestic product by 17% in 2070. Rising sea levels threaten coastal assets and populations, while heat waves would sap labor supply and productivity, and climate-dependent sectors like agriculture, forestry, and fisheries face shocks that will stifle output.

Estimates from the Deloitte Economics Institute calculate that about 75% of Asia-Pacific’s GDP is at high risk of climate disruption. This stands to affect at least half of the world’s labor force, which is in the region and in vulnerable industries. Climate inaction could lead to regional economic losses of about $96 trillion by 2070, the institute said in a report.

Asian countries have made strides toward decarbonising, but just maintaining policies implemented so far will lead to dangerous levels of global warming, the ADB said.

Taking the right type of action won’t come cheap. Estimates for Asia vary widely, in part due to different geographical definitions, but consensus is that funding is well below where it needs to be.

The ADB report estimates Asia-Pacific needs to invest anywhere from $102 billion to $431 billion annually to adapt to climate change. That far exceeds the $34 billion committed over 2021-2022.

Globally, the U.N. calculates the net-zero transition needs $0.9 trillion to $2.1 trillion a year between 2021 and 2050. That “is substantial but manageable in the broader context of the close-to-US$110 trillion global economy and financial markets.”

It remains technically possible to get on a 1.5°C pathway, as solutions like solar and wind power hold promise for fast, sweeping emissions cuts, the U.N. report said.

Getting back on track could be a big boost for Asia-Pacific economies.

The region is well-placed to benefit from the energy transition, the ADB said. It has massive potential for renewable-energy generation and can produce some of the world’s cheapest renewable electricity, it said. Advantages like fast-growing economies, a large workforce and strong manufacturing base equip Asia to develop the technologies needed for global decarbonisation.

That presents a wealth of opportunities for investors.

If governments formulate consistent policies and build climate-oriented financial systems, that can draw the private capital that’s key to plugging the funding gap, ADB said.

Policy uncertainty over could deter investment, particularly in the case of a change of political administrations. Investors hold more sustainable assets when countries adopt climate laws, and misaligned policies reduce incentives for private investors, ADB said.

That is particularly relevant in a year that has seen elections across Asia, including in India, Indonesia and Japan. The upcoming presidential election in the U.S. is in especially sharp focus as the outcome has implications for climate-change efforts.

That’s because of the U.S.’s role as a key player in green innovation and international cooperation on climate commitments and financing, as well as a major trading partner, said ADB principal economist Shu Tian.

Policy uncertainty from a key player can significantly affect the international climate agenda, she said.

“The U.S.’s stance on climate action influences the low-carbon transition through market mechanisms, affecting consumers, suppliers, and investors,” she said. “This, in turn, could impact climate investments across the [APAC] region.”

It’s the corporate gamble of the moment: Can you run a company, increasing sales and juicing profits, without adding people?

American employers are increasingly making the calculation that they can keep the size of their teams flat—or shrink through layoffs—without harming their businesses.

Part of that thinking is the belief that artificial intelligence will be used to pick up some of the slack and automate more processes. Companies are also hesitant to make any moves in an economy many still describe as uncertain.

JPMorgan Chase’s chief financial officer told investors recently that the bank now has a “very strong bias against having the reflective response” to hire more people for any given need. Aerospace and defense company RTX boasted last week that its sales rose even without adding employees.

Goldman Sachs , meanwhile, sent a memo to staffers this month saying the firm “will constrain head count growth through the end of the year” and reduce roles that could be more efficient with AI. Walmart , the nation’s largest private employer, also said it plans to keep its head count roughly flat over the next three years, even as its sales grow.

“If people are getting more productive, you don’t need to hire more people,” Brian Chesky , Airbnb’s chief executive, said in an interview. “I see a lot of companies pre-emptively holding the line, forecasting and hoping that they can have smaller workforces.”

Airbnb employs around 7,000 people, and Chesky says he doesn’t expect that number to grow much over the next year. With the help of AI, he said he hopes that “the team we already have can get considerably more work done.”

Many companies seem intent on embracing a new, ultralean model of staffing, one where more roles are kept unfilled and hiring is treated as a last resort. At Intuit , every time a job comes open, managers are pushed to justify why they need to backfill it, said Sandeep Aujla , the company’s chief financial officer. The new rigor around hiring helps combat corporate bloat.

“That typical behavior that settles in—and we’re all guilty of it—is, historically, if someone leaves, if Jane Doe leaves, I’ve got to backfill Jane,” Aujla said in an interview. Now, when someone quits, the company asks: “Is there an opportunity for us to rethink how we staff?”

Intuit has chosen not to replace certain roles in its finance, legal and customer-support functions, he said. In its last fiscal year, the company’s revenue rose 16% even as its head count stayed flat, and it is planning only modest hiring in the current year.

The desire to avoid hiring or filling jobs reflects a growing push among executives to see a return on their AI spending. On earnings calls, mentions of ROI and AI investments are increasing, according to an analysis by AlphaSense, reflecting heightened interest from analysts and investors that companies make good on the millions they are pouring into AI.

Many executives hope that software coding assistants and armies of digital agents will keep improving—even if the current results still at times leave something to be desired.

The widespread caution in hiring now is frustrating job seekers and leading many employees within organizations to feel stuck in place, unable to ascend or take on new roles, workers and bosses say.

Inside many large companies, HR chiefs also say it is becoming increasingly difficult to predict just how many employees will be needed as technology takes on more of the work.

Some employers seem to think that fewer employees will actually improve operations.

Meta Platforms this past week said it is cutting 600 jobs in its AI division, a move some leaders hailed as a way to cut down on bureaucracy.

“By reducing the size of our team, fewer conversations will be required to make a decision, and each person will be more load-bearing and have more scope and impact,” Alexandr Wang , Meta’s chief AI officer, wrote in a memo to staff seen by The Wall Street Journal.

Though layoffs haven’t been widespread through the economy, some companies are making cuts. Target on Thursday said it would cut about 1,000 corporate employees, and close another 800 open positions, totaling around 8% of its corporate workforce. Michael Fiddelke , Target’s incoming CEO, said in a memo sent to staff that too “many layers and overlapping work have slowed decisions, making it harder to bring ideas to life.”

A range of other employers, from the electric-truck maker Rivian to cable and broadband provider Charter Communications , have announced their own staff cuts in recent weeks, too.

Operating with fewer people can still pose risks for companies by straining existing staffers or hurting efforts to develop future leaders, executives and economists say. “It’s a bit of a double-edged sword,” said Matthew Martin , senior U.S. economist at Oxford Economics. “You want to keep your head count costs down now—but you also have to have an eye on the future.”

Climate Change Can Take Big Toll on Asian Economies, Inaction Could Cost More, ADB Report Says

It could reduce Asia-Pacific’s gross domestic product by 17% in 2070, ADB says.

JPMorgan Chase has a ‘strong bias’ against adding staff, while Walmart is keeping its head count flat. Major employers are in a new, ultra lean era.