REPORT: The Cost of Ignoring Climate Change Is $20 Trillion A Year

[RedEarth]

Global warming deniers frequently fall back on the following argument: even if global warming is real, it’s too expensive to mitigate. For example, the National Review’s Jason Steorts said it would require “economic castration.” Such arguments, however, ignore the costs of inaction.

A new study by the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University reveals the severe economic consequences of doing nothing. From the report:

f nothing is done to restrain greenhouse gas emissions, annual economic damages could reach US$20 trillion by 2100 (expressed in U.S. dollars at 2002 prices), or 6 to 8 percent of global economic output at that time (Kemfert 2005). The same study found that immediate adoption of active climate protection policies could limit the temperature increase to 2° and eliminate more than half of the damages…If, however, climate protection efforts do not begin until 2025, the same model estimates that it will be impossible to limit warming to 2° by 2100 — and climate protection in general will be more expensive, the later it starts.

Even that estimate “necessarily omit some of the most troubling potential consequences of climate change.” Importantly, the study found that the cost of mitigation is about one quarter the cost of doing nothing.


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/13/climate-change-cost/

[Lisa]

1. oh, great. That's like a third of the Gross World Product

(from 2005, adjusted with Purchasing Power Parity)

Plainly we can't afford global warming.

[Hav]

2. .

In 2100...the current Repubs never care about longterm consequences. Just the success in the shortterm is relevant.

[jdlh8894]

9. 12-15 Generations from Now?

I can't get past 5 or 6 in my tree.

[lapfog_1]

3. The good news is that on a per-capita basis

this loss won't be so bad.

(You do the math).

[rodeodance]

4. this is the Bush (and Howard-Aussie)---argument:--it would ruin our econom

y.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

6. Did you see An Inconvenient Truth?

There's an amusing (but grave) point where Gore points out this assertation, using a graphic that basically shows a choice between saving the economy and saving the, uh, planet.

Makes it painfully obvious that the "it will ruin the economy" people are morons.

[rodeodance]

8. no, have not seen it yet, but will soon. Certainly read about it.

[rodeodance]

5. bush would say the methodology is flawed and report is not credible!

[rodeodance]

7. day after day we see these rReports an yet we do nothing.

[stepnw1f]

12. Like Prisoners on a Ship to Know Where....

We have to get rid of the stupid in the US of A.

[Vulture]

10. LOL, you've got to be kidding

This make a vast number of extremely dubious presumptions about what the economy will look like in the future. The projection of economic consequences is competely and utterly worthless because it is basically a strawman.

Imagine the kinds of dire projections studies in 1900 would say regarding future consequences of issues of the day in 2000. In fact, such things *were* done and were universally absurd because all such studies must assume a technological, demographic, and economic stasis of sorts. We need to do something about climate change, but this study is the kind of ridiculous nonsense that will make a lot of otherwise reasonable people roll their eyes and tune out.

[Gwerlain]

11. So, now, let's just make sure we're understanding what you're..

saying here. Are you saying people won't need to eat any more? Well, hmmm, perhaps that's not it. Oh, you must be saying that we'll have some way ot just not having to worry about severe storms any more- you know, hurricanes and typhoons? So we're gonna have some magic technology that just "handles" 140mph winds. Well, no, I guess that's not just real plausible either. Oh, I've got it! You think we're gonna be able to live at the bottom of the sea! Well, no, maybe not that one either.

Just what are you blathering about here, anyway? You got some kinda specific criticism of this report, or you just don't like the conclusions so you're looking for anything you can come up with that's "wrong" with it? Gee, that sounds a lot like a strategy I've seen used a LOT somewhere or other just lately. Hmmm, who could it be that I've seen doing that? Now, let me think...

[Vulture]

18. Congratulations on a trite and shallow response

Really, try and put a little thought into it next time because your first thought wasn't a particularly brilliant one.

You would be one of the people in 1900 deeply concerned with the mounting piles of horse shit due to its use as a primary mode of transportation as the population was growing.

Food supplies will never be a problem. People who think that are ignorant of both the technological trends and the topic generally. It is such a non-problem that we do not even try to be resource efficient in any kind of absolute sense, because shaving a few pennies on relative price efficiency is worth more. Distribution is the primary problem, and even that is radically improving with time.

Severe storms are not a problem now, and will be even less so in the future. It is a trivial exercise to design for such things, and of little economic significance. It amounts to a minor increase in the capital costs of construction -- assuming you do not live in an area that already over-engineers buildings for those and other types of hazards. And as new materials and design techniques become available, it gets cheaper and increases the number of options. It is no different than how some cities are engineered for monster earthquakes, or in some cases, very severe weather. Severe storms have never meant the apocalypse for the parts of the world that consider them normal and build under those assumptions. Almost all damage from severe storms is associated with areas that are not engineered under the assumption that such things occur. In the same way that Memphis will be leveled in the next major earthquake but San Francisco or Tokyo will be largely unscathed. It is not because Memphis is lacking some magical technology or that a solution would be too expensive -- these are all easily solved problems -- but because they never took it into consideration when constructing their infrastructure.


In short, your lack of imagination and information does not define reality. All that will generally be required is an incremental upgrade of infrastructure, which is very doable and not outrageously expensive because some cities are doing it today. Give me a real and substantial problem that cannot be attacked with rapidly improving technology, and you might have a point. What you are asserting is even lamer than trying to project the consequences of horse-based transportation a century into the future.

If in the year 2100, we have not figured out how to do the kind of routine infrastructure engineering that is done today, I will be surprised. Never mind that technology will be unimaginably more advanced -- a century is a very, very long time for technological development today.

[Gwerlain]

22. Congratulations on your perspicacity.

I merely suited my level of discourse to the level of intelligence I saw in what I was replying to. Glad you noticed.

[kestrel91316]

16. Ok. You've convinced me. Let's just keep merrily polluting our

way through life, and the hell with any consequences.

WHEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Party time!
I'm joining the ReNAMBLAcans!!!!!!!!!!

[Vulture]

19. What does this have to do with pollution?

There are plenty of good reasons to keep the planet clean and in good shape without resorting to publishing idiotic strawman "reasons" we should care. Are you saying it is okay to beat people over the head with bullshit as long as your intentions are good? Sorry, but I do not subscribe to that point of view. There are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons to do the right thing without cheapening the discussion with nonsense.

We already have one anti-science party, and I'd rather not create another one thank-you-very-much. Global warming won't be solved by ridiculous economic projections a century into the future -- even if the economics are in fact dire -- so it is unclear what it is contributing to the discussion. If I wanted to read fiction, I'd go to FreeRepublic. Is it so wrong to be pragmatic, rational, level-headed, and literate with respect to technical subjects?

Call me simple, but I am looking for insightful and effective analyses rather than pablum designed to stir up the masses.

[kestrel91316]

23. If you don't understand that greenhouse gases are pollutants,

I don't suppose there's any hope at all for you.

Such a pity. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[Vulture]

24. I understand perfectly

But that has nothing to do with the topic at hand and you are grasping at random straws.

Yes, greenhouse gases are a pollutant, no one was denying that. I am unclear as to what this has to do with the economic projections under discussion being a load of bollocks, as the latter is true regardless. As I stated, there are plenty of good reasons to aggressively address pollution without using nonsense as a justification. Using such dubious justifications seriously damages the credibility of the first assertion (that we need to control pollution better) by association. What is so hard to understand about this?

If I stated that we need to get the troops out of Iraq in order to save the purple elephants, the validity of the first part is not made less true by the fact that my rationale is utter nonsense. But people will probably stop paying attention to what I have to say.

[taterguy]

13. So is it time to stop driving yet?

Who here is willing to accept personal responsibility and just stop driving, no matter what others do. Or at least stop driving so much?

[kestrel91316]

17. I don't know about anybody else, but I drive about 80% less

than I did 20 years ago. My next car had better get close to 40 mpg or I'm not interested. I conserve energy as much as possible. I use mass transit as much as possible.

It would be nice if everybody else would start pulling their weight instead of saying "It's too HARD!" or "I can't eliminate all my energy use so there's no reason for me to bother trying to decrease it."

[Vulture]

20. I'd drive a lot less if they let us

Seriously. The city planners up here in northern California strenuously object to the idea of high density construction or anything that would turn the region even slightly urban. They vigorously force suburban sprawl and then wonder why public transportation is an abject failure. Those kinds of self-contradictory positions are killing us. I'd love to live in an urban neighborhood, but there is nothing around to speak of, just vast mandated suburbs.

These days I actually work at home most days, and I've always walked the half-mile to the grocery store, so my driving footprint is pretty minimal. I hate commuting, and avoid it when at all practical. Fortunately, the internet is finally at a stage where this is a reasonable possibility.

[robertpaulsen]

14. If you think that's scary, read this!

The End of Eden
James Lovelock Says This Time We've Pushed the Earth Too Far

By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 2, 2006; Page C01

ST. GILES-ON-THE-HEATH, England

snip

"Our global furnace is out of control. By 2020, 2025, you will be able to sail a sailboat to the North Pole. The Amazon will become a desert, and the forests of Siberia will burn and release more methane and plagues will return."

Sulfurous musings are not Lovelock's characteristic style; he's no Book of Revelation apocalyptic. In his 88th year, he remains one of the world's most inventive scientists, an Englishman of humor and erudition, with an oenophile's taste for delicious controversy. Four decades ago, his discovery that ozone-destroying chemicals were piling up in the atmosphere started the world's governments down a path toward repair. Not long after that, Lovelock proposed the theory known as Gaia, which holds that Earth acts like a living organism, a self-regulating system balanced to allow life to flourish.

snip

Within the next decade or two, Lovelock forecasts, Gaia will hike her thermostat by at least 10 degrees. Earth, he predicts, will be hotter than at any time since the Eocene Age 55 million years ago, when crocodiles swam in the Arctic Ocean.

"There's no realization of how quickly and irreversibly the planet is changing," Lovelock says. "Maybe 200 million people will migrate close to the Arctic and survive this. Even if we took extraordinary steps, it would take the world 1,000 years to recover."

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/01/AR2006090101800.html

[jdlh8894]

15. The Rapture? n/t

[many a good man]

21. Let's do something FOR our grandchildern instead of STEALING from them!

From what I hear a two degree temperature increase in the next 100 years is a given even if we stop ALL carbon emissions today. We MUST start preparing for the consequences TODAY. (Sorry New Orleans)