The Cost of Change
Yet, as a climate advocate, I seldom hear about these costs. Instead, I hear about the costs of responding to climate change. I suppose that's how the political process works: no politician wants to take the credit for raising our energy bills or gasoline prices. During one meeting this week, a Senate staffer explained his skepticism about federal climate change legislation, declaring that his boss "doesn't want to drive the US economy over a cliff."
Frankly, I don't think responding to climate change is what's going to drive our economy over a cliff. Doing nothing, however, just might. And on this point, EPA and I seem to be in agreement. About a week ago, EPA released it's analysis of the Lieberman-Warner bill – and the report confirmed what we knew all along: we can cut our greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 60% without harming the U.S. economy. As Senator Warner (the Bills Republican sponsor) says, "You can control greenhouse gas emissions in a manner that leaves the economy whole and is not burdensome on consumers.”
In fact, EPA forecast that U.S. GDP would grow by some 80 percent between 2010 and 2030 under the bill -- only 1 percent below what it would otherwise have been. In other words, national climate change legislation will only modestly slow a thriving economy.
And that's only half the story. The EPA analysis assumes the U.S. economy will continue to grow unabated absent climate change legislation. In other words, the baseline disregards the costs of climate change. It disregards the rising seas and dying forests and failing agriculture. It disregards the cost of responding to hurricanes and elevating houses. And yet, in one basic regard, EPA and I agree: responding to climate change will not drive the U.S. economy over a cliff.
[For more on the EPA analysis, check out EDF's blog: "How Much Will It Cost To Save the World."]
Either way, it sounds like the EPA has finally gone above politics and put out some science... it's been long enough. (Comment this)
Evan (Comment this)
The link to the Washington Post story doesn't seem to be working - so full text of the story follows:
Don't Blame SAIC
The latest broadside against legislation that would put the brakes on climate change is an "independent study" conducted by Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), a leading science adviser to the federal government. The study, released last month, found that the legislation, co-authored by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.), would produce hundreds of billions of dollars of losses in the gross domestic product and substantial increases in electricity and gasoline prices.
On closer examination, footnote No. 5 of the study says that SAIC does not endorse a word of the document. According to the footnote, the study's inputs came from the groups that paid for the report -- the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), which have an interest in the results coming out that way. SAIC used its computer model on the data, but that was the extent of its involvement.
"SAIC is a policy-neutral, non-advocacy organization," the footnote states. "Analysis provided in this report is based on the output from the . . . model as a result of the ACCF/NAM input assumptions. The input assumptions, opinions and recommendations in this report are those of ACCF and NAM, and do not necessarily represent the views of SAIC."
Margo Thorning of the ACCF accepts that view but asserts that the study is not undermined.
Oh.
(Comment this)
Given some of the factors you mentioned (ie: hurricane damage, rising fuel prices, etc.), even the strongest opposition to progressive environmental policy is beginning to shift. We are on the brink of a transition into a society that is far less dependent on fossil fuels and more efficient in every facet of life. I just hope that more studies begin to cite the net losses of unabated climate change and factor in the real gains of a fuel efficient economy. (Comment this)
Global warming comes with a big price tag for every country in the world. The 80 percent reduction in U.S. emissions needed to stop climate change may not come cheaply, but the cost of failing to act will be much greater. New research shows that if present trends continue, the total cost of global warming will be as high as 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Four global warming impacts alone -- hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs -- will come with a price tag of 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today's dollars) by 2100. (Comment this)