Unless you're one of the many congressional ostriches with their
heads buried in the sand, you realize that climate change is a thing. A real life thing that's happening now. The Obama administration has tried to sway more conservative opinions by showing the
economic impact climate change will have on all of us (even those breathing out of straws under sand). Unfortunately, a new study—
published here—has just been released that is basically saying that the dire economic
prognostications reported were pie-eyed optimistic.
A recent U.S. government study concluded, based on the results of three widely used economic impact models, that an additional ton of carbon dioxide emitted in 2015 would cause $37 worth of economic damages. These damages are expected to take various forms, including decreased agricultural yields, harm to human health and lower worker productivity, all related to climate change.
But according to a new study, published online this week in the journal Nature Climate Change, the actual cost could be much higher. "We estimate that the social cost of carbon is not $37 per ton, as previously estimated, but $220 per ton," said study coauthor Frances Moore, a PhD candidate in the Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources in Stanford's School of Earth Sciences.
The good news to take away from this is that with costs this high, many countries' cost-benefit analyses should be reached pretty easily. This could potentially get more people on board with more costly ways of reducing carbon emissions.
One major finding of the new study is that the damages associated with reductions in economic growth rates justify very rapid and very early mitigation that is sufficient to limit the rise of global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This is the target that some experts say is necessary to avert the worst effects of global warming.
"This effect is not included in the standard IAMs," Moore said, "so until now it's been very difficult to justify aggressive and potentially expensive mitigation measures because the damages just aren't large enough."
With a Republican Congress that seems hellbent on cutting the EPA's powers, this is either the worst or the best time for this information to come out.