Georgia Power's Plant Bowen in Euharlee, Ga., located about 40 miles northwest of Atlanta, is shown in this June 20, 2002, aerial file photo. (AP Photo/The Daily Tribune News, Dayton P. Strickland/FILE)
Senate weighs cost of acting, and not acting, on emissions
It doesn't come down to polar bears, it comes down to cost – and while the cost of acting is steep, the cost of inaction appears to be steeper, experts say.
By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / May 23, 2008 edition
Reporter Mark Clayton discusses the "numbers fight" over climate change legislation.
Reporter Mark Clayton
For those who think the battle over US carbon emissions legislation is already in full swing, this past week was a reminder that it’s just beginning. The central debating point: the numbers.
How much will it cost American taxpayers to curb US carbon-dioxide emissions? Or, conversely, how much would it cost to just drop the blinds, turn up the air conditioner, and not do much at all? The answer to the question of economic impact - far more than the issue of polar-bear survival - will determine the outcome of the climate bill battle, political observers say.
On May 20, government witnesses told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee how much the leading climate change legislation - the Lieberman-Warner bill (also known as “America’s Climate Security Act”) - is likely to cost the US economy in terms of economic growth:
• As much as 3.8 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - about $983 billion annually - under a high-cost scenario that cuts CO2 emissions by 40 percent by 2030, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The consensus among climate scientists is that the US and other nations need to cut their emissions by 80 percent by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
• By as little as 1 percent of GDP - $64 billion per year, on average - between 2010 and 2030, the Energy Information Administration reported.
• Some $669 billion annually by 2030 and the loss of 3 million to 4 million jobs, says a study unveiled this month by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).
“Any way you look at it,” said Keith McKoy, a NAM vice president, in a statement, “Lieberman-Warner will result in major disruptions of our economy, soaring energy prices, and millions of lost jobs. “The urge to do something without a thorough and thoughtful analysis must be resisted.”
But inaction also has a cost.
A 2006 British study by Nicholas Stern, who heads that nation’s Government Economic Service, estimated the global cost of doing nothing would at 5 to 20 percent of the world’s annual gross domestic product - similar to the impact of a major world war or economic depression.
On May 23, two Tufts University economists detailed the cost to the United States alone of inaction on climate. Overall, they estimate the impact at about 3.6 percent of GDP - an enormous hit - by the year 2100. In the “business as usual” scenario, hurricane damage, real estate losses, higher energy costs, and fresh-water demands alone would cost the nation about 1.8 percent of its annual GDP, or about $1.9 trillion each year by 2100.
“We think it’s clear that the cost of doing nothing is far higher than the cost of taking action,” says Dan Lashoff, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate center, an environmental group that sponsored the Tufts study. “There’s an inherent bias in most of the dire projections of economic damage because these models do a poor job of anticipating the innovation that will occur in the marketplace - in alternative energy development, for instance - so they end up overestimating the cost.”
But another, third point of view, is that all of these projections should be taken with a grain of salt - or maybe a pound of it.
“It is difficult, and some would consider it unwise, to project costs up to the year 2030, much less beyond,” Larry Parker, an energy specialist at the Congressional Research Service told the Senate May 20 in his testimony.
Already, Mr. Parker said, “tenuous assumptions” that current regulatory standards would remain stable are “becoming unrealistic” and the prospect of unforeseen events, such as technological breakthroughs, are looming.
Clearly the cost of the Lieberman-Warner climate bill will ultimately be determined by how the US economy responds to the technological challenges posed by the demand to reduce carbon emissions. A few of the large, but highly uncertain cost factors, include:
• The cost to build a considerable amount of low-carbon electric-generating capacity.
• The viability of incentives to produce adequate schemes for carbon capture and storage.
• The role that carbon offsets and credits will play in buying time for companies to develop cost-effective ways to reduce emissions.
• The answer to the question, “Will other nations, including China and India, consider the US steps credible enough to follow suit?”
“Long-term cost projections are at best speculative and should be viewed with attentive skepticism,” energy expert Parker said. Then, quoting Lincoln Moses, the first administrator of the Energy Information Administration under President Carter, he offered the reminder: “There are no facts about the future.”
2. Ben Wilken | 05.23.08
That was a horribly misleading subtitle. The “expert” who says “the cost of inaction is steeper” happens to be the director of an environmental group. Moreover, his study predicted a hit of 3.6% by 2100, while the other studies were predicting the cost at the year 2030, a MUCH nearer time frame, and anyway one of them projected 3.8% damage. Despite a well reported article (which encourages skepticism), the subtitle is biased, inaccurate, and unworthy of your paper.
3. One Wing Left » It’s News To M_A - 5/24/08 | 05.24.08
[…] Senate weighs cost of acting, and not acting, on emissions For those who think the battle over US carbon emissions legislation is already in full swing, this past week was a reminder that it’s just beginning. The central debating point: the numbers. How much will it cost American taxpayers to curb US carbon-dioxide emissions? Or, conversely, how much would it cost to just drop the blinds, turn up the air conditioner, and not do much at all? The answer to the question of economic impact - far more than the issue of polar-bear survival - will determine the outcome of the climate bill battle, political observers say. On May 20, government witnesses told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee how much the leading climate change legislation - the Lieberman-Warner bill (also known as “America’s Climate Security Act”) - is likely to cost the US economy in terms of economic growth: • As much as 3.8 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - about $983 billion annually - under a high-cost scenario that cuts CO2 emissions by 40 percent by 2030, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The consensus among climate scientists is that the US and other nations need to cut their emissions by 80 percent by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of climate change. • By as little as 1 percent of GDP - $64 billion per year, on average - between 2010 and 2030, the Energy Information Administration reported. • Some $669 billion annually by 2030 and the loss of 3 million to 4 million jobs, says a study unveiled this month by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). “Any way you look at it,” said Keith McKoy, a NAM vice president, in a statement, “Lieberman-Warner will result in major disruptions of our economy, soaring energy prices, and millions of lost jobs. “The urge to do something without a thorough and thoughtful analysis must be resisted.” But inaction also has a cost. […]
4. Harold Kornylak | 05.24.08
I am quite impressed by the link taking the other view on global warming. I hope the Monitor can do an in depth research and report on this very critical and timely issue! Please let me know if you do, as I don’t read the paper every day.
5. jroooo | 05.25.08
A full Congressional Research Service report, co-authored by Larry Parker is available at http://www.opencrs.com/document/RL34489
6. Stuart Lerner | 05.25.08
Forget
about the so-called “experts” on each side of this issue. The only
thing you need to do is watch AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH by Al Gore. There
you will see “facts on the ground” that are alarming. There are no more
“Snows of Kilimanjaro”. Entire glaciers in the Arctic have melted away. Scientists have actually measured the amount
of carbon dioxide in the ice layers of the Antarctic going back 650,000
years. The amount of carbon now in our atmosphere is off the chart when
compared to this historical record. While watching this movie my wife
had to leave the room because the facts are so frightening. Even if you
discount the conclusions in this movie by 75% the future
of the planet is very bleak.
7. Chris Headrick | 05.25.08
The inconvenient truth is that there is nothing short of a nuclear winter that we as humans could do to affect our atmosphere. The scientific testing of ice layers mentioned is based on conjecture and nothing more. It is high time that we take our country back from our congressman, environmentalist and their fear tactics.
8. David Mathews | 05.26.08
I can see that the conservative creationists and flat earthers have already expressed their opinion that humans can do not harm to the climate. Chris claims: “The inconvenient truth is that there is nothing short of a nuclear winter that we as humans could do to affect our atmosphere.”
So dumping millions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere doesn’t have any impact on the climate? Science indicates that it does … but conservatives are scientifically illiterate at best, eager to destroy the planet for profits at worst.
Mike asks, “Why is the opinion of a small group of biased “elites” more credible than 31,000 American scientists?”
Perhaps it is because the 31,000 scientists are associated in some vague manner with the Discovery Institute, a creationist organization which has a long history of lying about science. But if you want to believe the Earth is flat I might be able to find 31,000 “scientists” who would sign a flat-earth petition.
9. Gordon Aubrecht | 05.26.08
The comments are strange.
I received the bogus so-called petition. I suppose if 31,000 self-described scientists signed it, either they were ignorant because they weren’t reading articles in refereed journals about the subject (or the IPCC report), or they were believers to whom facts are irrelevant. The one “article” (not published, though it looked to be an offprint) enclosed with the petition was pure fantasy.
There is consensus among knowledgeable scientists that human-produced CO2 as all other CO2 will cause the temperature to rise, and that this signal is detectable above the noise.
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the best expert summary of current knowledge, says “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” The words “very likely” mean in science-speak a 90 to 99% probability of certainty based on what is known (science results are always uncertain by definition because science rests on disproof, not proof).
The possibility of high costs of a fire or flood cause most of us (very likely including the 31,000 signers)to buy homeowners’ insurance. We know, as the article quotes an expert that “There are no facts about the future.” The possible high costs of inaction should persuade rational humans to buy insurance as envisioned in the Senate legislation discussed in the article.
10. Badgersouth | 05.26.08
“Scientists traveling with the troops found major new fractures during an assessment of the state of giant ice shelves in Canada’s far north.
“The team found a network of cracks that stretched for more than 10 miles (16km) on Ward Hunt, the area’s largest shelf.
“The fate of the vast ice blocks is seen as a key indicator of climate change.”
BBC News, May 23, 2008
11. Badgersouth | 05.26.08
“Barcelona is a dry city. It is dry in a way that two days of showers can do nothing to alleviate. The Catalan capital’s weather can change from one day to the next, but its climate, like that of the whole Mediterranean region, is inexorably warming up and drying out. And in the process this most modern of cities is living through a crisis that offers a disturbing glimpse of metropolitan futures everywhere.
“Its fountains and beach showers are dry, its ornamental lakes and private swimming pools drained and hosepipes banned. Children are now being taught how to save water as part of their school day. This iconic, avant-garde city is in the grip of the worst drought since records began and is bringing the climate crisis that has blighted cities in Australia and throughout the Third World to Europe. A resource that most Europeans have grown up taking for granted now dominates conversation. Nearly half of Catalans say water is the region’s main problem, more worrying than terrorism, economic slowdown or even the populists’ favourite – immigration.”
The Independent, Saturday, 24 May 2008
12. Mike Higgins | 05.26.08
It is sad when the proponents of human-caused resort to personally attacking those who disagree with them and simply claim, without support, that a consensus exits for their point of view when any rational person can see that it does not. They cite no sources for their beliefs beyond the infamous politically-based IPCC report from the politically-based United Nations, a bastion of proven corruption.
To clarify, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring gas in our atmosphere that is supports plant life and the animal life that depends on plants for sustenance, including humans. Plants consume CO2 and emit oxygen. Humans consume oxygen and emit CO2. A result of increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere has been the faster growth of plants. (See the links in my previous comments for the scientific support of this statement.)
I have yet to hear a reasonable argument supporting the assertion that CO2 causes an increase in temperature. The fact is that all the empirical evidence disputes this assertion. I have attached links in my previous comments supporting this. I challenge the proponents of human-based climate change to support their assertion with relevant links (other than the IPCC report) that show otherwise. If this assertion is so widely held by the consensus of scientists, why is it so difficult to find such corroborating support?
The assertion that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere cause global temperatures to rise is the foundation of human-caused climate change. If this assertion is false, then the entire argument for human-based climate change falls apart.
1. Mike Higgins | 05.23.08
The Monitor USED to be known for its objective reporting. This is certainly not true anymore in regards to man-made global warming. Articles like this one, which selectively quote extreme positions about the costs of inaction regarding the reduction of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere do no service to your readers.
Itʻs hard to understand how the Monitor can consistently print articles claiming that experts even agree on the concept of man-made global warming when 31,000 American scientists have recently signed a petition to the U.S. Government completely rejecting the assertion that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cause global warming and that global warming, per se, is even a bad thing. Why is the opinion of a small group of biased “elites” more credible than 31,000 American scientists?
The following is a quotation from the petition: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Please visit http://www.oism.org/pproject/ for additional details.