A seven-member team at the Economics for Equity and Environment have concluded in The Economics of 350: The Benefits and Costs of Climate Stabilization that quickly reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere to 350 parts per million would have significant economic costs. But authors Frank Ackerman, Kristin Sheeran and Eban Goodstein say that these costs would, at worst, amount to foregoing less than one year’s normal growth of about 2.5%-3% of GDP. And they would be far below the costs – both economic and otherwise – of not making the reduction or of not making it rapidly.
In 1990, at the Rio Earth Summit, it was thought that stabilizing the atmosphere at around 450 ppm of CO2 would mean holding the average rise in temperature to 2°C. The effects of this would be unpleasant and problematic – highly problematic in some parts of the world, especially low-lying and high-latitude areas, – but livable with adjustments. If current levels of increase continue, we’d hit the 450 ppm mark around 2040. But in the past few years, scientific opinion has shifted. According to the 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, there is a 7 in 10 chance that that much CO2 could raise the temperature by more than 2.4°C.
As authors of "The Economics of 350," point out, the last time things were that hot, sea levels were 75 feet higher than they are now.
Consequently, in 2007, a new number was derived: 350 ppm. Since the atmosphere already contains about 390 ppm of CO2., we’re talking more than stabilization in a couple of decades, but actual cuts from where we already are. And the sooner the better, unlike the go-slow prescriptions of economists such as, most famously, William Nordhaus. The report’s authors state:
Some economists have become known for advocating only slow and modest responses to climate change, lest the costs of mitigation become too large.
This report demonstrates that the 'go slow' recommendations are unjustified. A number of economic analyses, informed by recent scientific findings and using reasonable assumptions, suggest that more ambitious targets and quicker action make good economic sense. The warnings about climate change are growing steadily more ominous — but it has not, as a consequence, become impossibly expensive to save the planet. We can still afford a sustainable future.
The bad news about climate change relates mostly to the costs of inaction. As greenhouse gas emissions grow, it is the cost of doing nothing that is becoming unbearable, not the cost of taking action. If there is reason for optimism amidst the dire warnings it is this: the costs of insuring the planet against climate disaster are not prohibitive. The best estimates of the costs of a vigorous, immediate effort to rebuild the world economy around carbon-free technologies are still in the range of one to three percent of world output (GDP) per year, even with the more stringent emissions reduction goals we are supporting. Scientific research continues to yield evidence
that climate change is occurring faster, and its consequences could be more severe, than previously expected: the costs of climate inaction, or even of delay in mounting a large-scale response to the climate crisis, are getting worse and worse.
We cannot afford a little climate policy, half-measures that would leave us all vulnerable to the immense risks of an increasingly destructive climate. We need a big initiative, a comprehensive global deal on protecting the earth's climate by rapidly reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Because the status quo is not sustainable, the most economical choice is to change, as quickly, cost-effectively, and comprehensively as possible.
[...]
The most important conclusion involves what we did not find. There are no reasonable studies that say that a 350 ppm stabilization target will destroy the economy; there are no studies that claim that it is desirable to wait before taking action on climate protection. On the contrary, there is strong, widespread endorsement for policies to promote energy conservation, development of new energy technologies, and price incentives and other economic measures that will redirect the world economy onto a low-carbon path to sustainability.
Disagreements emerge at the level of more specific estimates and recommendations. Is a potential cost of 1 to 3 percent of world GDP a large or a small number? The answer depends on how seriously you take the risks of climate change. Recall that the starting point for the discussion of the 350 ppm CO2 target is the projection of potentially catastrophic climate change if the atmosphere remains above that level. With strong assumptions about damages, even the DICE model will give up its leisurely stroll toward abatement in favor of rapid emissions reductions.
Think of climate risk in terms of insurance. The reason people buy fire insurance is not because they are certain that their house will burn down; rather, it is because they cannot be sufficiently certain that it will not burn down. Likewise, the projections of dangerous climate risk if the world exceeds 350 ppm CO2 in the long run are not certainties; they are, on the contrary, necessarily uncertain. If the worst happens, our grandchildren will inherit a degraded Earth that will not support anything like the life that we have enjoyed. On the other hand, if we prepare for the worst but it does not happen, we will have invested more than, in perfect hindsight, was necessary in clean energy, conservation, and carbon-free technologies. How would we feel about discovering we had done too much about climate change, compared to discovering we had done too little? |
You can listen to public radio station KPCC’s report on the study here.
Or read the Washington Post’s report here and The Wall Street Journal’s report here.
• • • • • • •
The diary rescue begins below and continues in the jump. Inclusion of a particular diary does not necessarily indicate my agreement with it.
• • • • • • •
Bruce Nilles touts the Sierra Club’s new ad in Coal is Too Dirty Even for College: "Did you know that many of our country’s colleges and universities – places that are supposed to be a source of higher-education and leadership – get their electricity by burning coal? And sometimes those coal-fired power plants are even on the campuses? I think many of us look back in disbelief at some of the things we did in college. We’re seeing that same sense of disbelief from current college students when they learn that their campuses are still powered by coal." Here is the ad:
• • • • • • •
wader has posted the Overnight News Digest.
boatsie eloquently looks back and to the future in "I carry Bolinas in my DNA"*: "I know the awesome beauty of Stonehenge, the blinding beauty of the sun-soaked Sacré-Cœur as it straddles Montmartre, the Disney-like aura of Old Town Prague when the bridges light up in the evening. I have lived and loved in London and stepped off the plane into the sunshine of a Dublin afternoon to feel the fierceness of my ancestral blood curse through my 'black' Irish veins. But I have never melted into a world with an intensity anywhere equivalent to what I experience each time I travel over Mt. Tamalpais and crash through (what my husband and I used to call) 'the coastal curtain.' There is just no turning back, no forgetting the sheer spirituality of this immersion."
This diary is part of the DK GreenRoots eco-series.
B Amer saw a glimmer of hop in Michigan Goes Green as its Trees Go Red (and Yellow, Orange, etc.): "As everyone knows, Michigan has been in a recession far longer than the rest of the country. As the expression goes, when the rest of the country gets a cold, Michigan gets the flu. Many Michigan companies are coming to the conclusion that green power jobs are one way to get this economy moving again. As this article describes, a group of Michigan companies have sent a letter to our Senators (Levin and Stabenow) urging them to vote for Kerry/Boxer and its clean energy initiatives. From the article: Investing in clean energy can create up to 54,000 jobs in Michigan in the next two years, according to a study by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Even in tough times, clean energy has created more than 100,000 jobs in Michigan – an 8-percent increase while jobs overall declined 5.4 percent from 2005 to 2008, according to the Michigan Green Jobs Report."
In another Hike On! piece, RLMiller wrote about Stories we tell and new wilderness in UT and NM: "HR 1925, America's Red Rock Wilderness Act of 2009, is a comprehensive bill that would designate as wilderness public lands acreage in Utah near (1) Great Basin; (2) Zion and Mojave Desert; (3) the Grand Staircase-Escalante; (4) Moab-La Sal Canyons; (5) Henry Mountains; (6) Glen Canyon; (7) San Juan-Anasazi; (8) Canyonlands Basin; (9) San Rafael Swell; and (10) Book Cliffs and Uinta Basin. It has 146 cosponsors, none of whom live in Utah. It has serious star power. The human star is Robert Redford, describing our chance to be present at the creation. His star power is eclipsed by the land itself; he says "I am still awed by the beauty of their serpentine canyons and alcoves filled with stone houses built by the ancestors of today's Pueblo people. I have profoundly inspiring memories of the time I've spent hiking with my family under sculpted arches, through pink sand dunes and across mesas that open up to a sea of redrock vistas."
mogmaar let us know about an 81 year-old who is organizing a march against MTR Coal mining: "I'm intrigued and impressed by the march in West Virginia, starting this Thursday. Roland Micklem, age 81, is inviting all citizens age 50 and older to join him on a 25 mile march from the WV state house to the Massey-owned Mammoth MTR site in Kanawha County. Roland's call to action against MTR coal mining in his post on the Climate Ground Zero blog: ...mountaintop removal is arguably the single most egregious environmental crime in the history of civilization, and it is continuing to happen without effective intervention by government agencies charged with its’ regulation. Throughout Appalachia, an area the size of Delaware has been totally denuded, and only token efforts have been made to reclaim a few of the sites. These and other abuses have been thoroughly documented, and there’s no need here for further discussion."
Julie Gulden issued a warning in Burger anyone? Think-again.....: "First, I promise to you that I will not do a ‘scare the heck out of you’ diary without offering a solution."
A Siegel wrote another installment of Energy COOL in Natural Fusion (and a fun event to attend)Since diving into the deep end when it comes to energy issues, almost every day sees new fascinating concepts, approaches, and technologies. Fascinating ... exciting ... even hope inspiring at times. And, as well, as the passion builds, so many of these are truly Energy COOL. And, Natural Fusion truly does look to be Energy COOL ... No, we're not speaking about Cold Fusion, but Penn State's entry into the DOE Solar Decathlon, which opens Thursday on the Mall in Washington, DC. Let's take a look at some of Natural Fusion's features from its website, which is dynamic, enabling rapid connection of concepts and approaches with the home's physical layout."
Free Chicken and Beer suggested we put Ice, Mud and Blood ft. Climatologist Chris Turney on our calendars: "Listen to The Faux Radio Show this Thursday night at 10:30 PM ET/9:30 PM CT. If you can't listen to the live segment, you can still catch it anytime on the archive just by going to the show website."
johnnygunn brrrrrrrrrought in a winter tale with Somebody Has to Live in Wyoming: "Well, we just got a big, early snowstorm. Almost a foot in town - - two feet in the mountains. ...As beautiful as it is, it will be hard on wildlife. This year's deer and antelope fawns depend upon fall forage to put on the most weight possible. A short fall with early snow cover means that many will die."