The Cost of Climate Change

Much to the delight of Republicans, the Democrats’ Build Back Better agenda appears to be foundering. The $1.7 trillion bill was to include $555 billion to combat climate change. This framework would set the United States on course to meet its climate targets, achieving a 50-52% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2030. Although there were efforts to pay for the majority of the bill’s costs through various means, dissenters cite high cost as their primary reason for their opposition.

A half-trillion dollars to fight climate change? It sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? Compared with the entire annual U.S. budget of $6.8 trillion, it is. But BBB was to be spread over ten years, so it averages out to closer to $55 billion annually. And remember, most of that would be paid for, so relatively little would be added to the annual deficit. Even so, it’s all still a pretty good chunk of change.

When we regard such costs, however, we need to also consider the price of the alternative: to do nothing. What will climate change cost the U.S. and the global economy if all the warnings and concerns are ignored? These costs include more frequent and expensive weather disasters such as droughts, wildfires. Floods, hurricanes, and off-season tornadoes. Add to this the cost of increased disease, migration, and famine, and decreased crop yields. Most of these things are happening already, but the continuing disruption and impact to our economy are only at their earliest stages.

What would it add up to? According to an analysis by global insurance company Swiss Re, if countries succeed at holding average global temperature increases to less than two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels as set by the 2015 Paris accord, the planet’s economic losses by 2050 would be no more than 5 percent smaller than would otherwise be the case. In today’s dollars, 5% of the current  U.S. GDP of $22 trillion is about $1.1 trillion.

What if we are not able to hold the average global temperature to less than two degrees? Most countries are well behind their Paris emissions targets, so this is a real possibility. Current projections are for the actual increase to be more like 2.6 degrees by 2050. Swiss Re considered this (and an even worse) scenario as well. The impact to the United States (and the world) would be closer to 7 percent of GDP, or $1.54 trillion. Comparing this figure and the 2-degree one, we can estimate that a half-trillion-dollar investment now could save us that much every single year by mid-century.

Like any long-term investment, the best time to begin was years ago. Stating that the United States has been substantially under-invested in climate action for decades, Rutgers University’s Robert Kopp says, “The longer we wait, the more damages we'll have to deal with, and the more costly it will be to lower our emissions in a way that avoids future damages.” Also like any long-term investment, it’s still better to begin late (like now) than never.

The current and future cost of climate change is more than just a monetary hit to the economy. Now we get to the most tragic aspect of a climate disaster. The cost of human lives and livelihoods lost and disrupted will be incalculable. It’s the same for the loss of global biodiversity; we’re creating a planet that none of us will recognize in our near future.

What will it take to mitigate the worst aspects of the coming climate disaster? The will to do what is right. And for that, we can start with investing in our planet’s future through Build Back Better.

Nuclear Power Needs to be Part of the Solution

For over 35 years, scientists have been telling us that our greenhouse gas emissions would cause climate change and that would lead to a climate crisis. Welcome to where we’re at now: the very start of a climate catastrophe that will only get worse. Had we listened and taken heed then, our present difficulties would be greatly reduced, and it would be much easier to further mitigate the problem. Perhaps we should listen to these scientists when they tell us that we now have to take even more drastic action to prevent complete disaster in years to come.

The fact is, we have to get to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. The burning of fossil fuels is the primary concern. Of course, it isn’t going to happen overnight, but zero needs to be the goal. We can get a great deal of the way with renewables. Wind and solar energy sources are clean and proven and must be further pursued. But these alone won’t get us all the way to zero. Fission-based nuclear energy (our current technology) has improved significantly; it’s now much safer, more efficient, and there is far less waste. It has the potential to take us the rest of the way.

In a Washington Post article, Jonah Goldberg argues that nuclear power must be part of any fight to take climate change seriously. Although Mr. Goldberg is wrong to criticize climate activists and politicians and their “periodic climate confabs that this is our ‘last chance’ to act or to save the planet” (they’re trying to save the world for our grandchildren, so cut them some slack), he is right to say that nuclear power needs to be a major part of the solution.

Nuclear power is safe, cheap, and carbon-free. It doesn’t cause any pollution in the usual sense. But like any source of energy, it’s not without problems. One is that no one wants them in their backyards, and partly as a result, they’re expensive and time-consuming to build. Another is that the source materials and fuel must be mined, and that’s a dirty, polluting business. Finally, there’s the problem of what to do with the waste.

Thanks to new technology, the waste from nuclear power is greatly reduced. But there’s still some; where do you put it? Mr. Goldberg is critical of President Obama for shutting the “perfectly safe” Yucca Mountain waste repository. That safety is debatable, but the current situation - nuclear waste is stored at more than 100 sites around the country – isn’t better. Other alternatives, such as recycling and other forms of storage, must be considered more seriously.

Regardless, there just aren’t any other solutions to climate change that will currently work for us. Think of it this way: nuclear power: it’s not just for Homer Simpson anymore.

Yes, it IS an existential threat

In the August 12 Post Featured Guest Column, Washington Post writer George F. Will argues that “With a closer look, certainty about the ‘existential’ climate threat melts away.” Mr. Will bases his article almost entirely on the opinions of physicist Steven E. Koonin. Interestingly, Marc A. Thiessen (also of the Washington Post) wrote a nearly identical article that relied heavily on Mr. Koonin inon May 17. Both Mr. Will and Mr. Thiessen have also written articles supporting climate science denial in the past. Koonin is the latest darling of climate science deniers, appearing on Fox News and other right-wing news outlets with scholarly-sounding arguments to support their point of view.

Koonin’s assertions, like those of other science deniers, have been widely debunked. It would be nice if Mr. Will and Mr. Thiessen had taken notice. Unfortunately, confirmation bias exists even for those articulate enough to write for the Washington Post. It would be even nicer if they were correct - that there is nothing to worry about with regards to climate change. Unfortunately, they are not.

No, humans are not "almost" totally to blame

 

“Are humans almost totally to blame for global warming?” This is the question posed by our local newspaper, the Post. The real answer is no, humans are not "almost" totally to blame, they are totally to blame, without qualification.

There is no debate. There's no question. Science has told us about this for forty years, and (confronted with reality) we're only now beginning to believe it. Too bad for humanity and the planet that it's taken so long. The debate needs to be about what we do about it.

Unfortunately, this is only the beginning. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report makes it clear that the consequences of our folly are and will continue to be dire. All we can do to mitigate the problem is to take action now to drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, with the ultimate goal of getting them down to net zero.

Some say that this isn't possible, or that we can't afford it. These folks were wrong before (about whether it's happening and whether humans are the cause), and they're wrong now. It is possible, and although it will cost us, we can afford it. We can't afford not to.

What is the planet worth?

Confirmation bias versus the truth

You are entitled to your own set of facts, but not your own opinions... Or was that the other way around?

It’s difficult to tell what the real (versus alternative) facts are these days, given the amount of misinformation and disinformation available through social media. You often have to dig deeper to get to the truth. You may not want to do further research, however, if you are easily presented with misinformation that supports your views.
Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek, favor, and interpret information in a way that confirms or supports a person’s personal beliefs. It’s a tendency that comes naturally to us. Education and training in critical thinking skills can help us resist the inclination.

Science relies much on education and training in critical thinking skills. It also relies on peer review and publication as guardrails to support, as much as possible, its quest to get closer to the truth. If science says something like climate change, and humanity’s role in it, is a fact, then you can bet that there is evidence to support it. If new peer-reviewed information comes along to dispute what was previously accepted, then our understanding may need to be altered. In regards to the science of climate change, this has not happened. Although our understanding is continuously being refined, no evidence has been brought to light to dispute that it’s occurring and that human activity is responsible. In fact, the opposite is the case.

When someone comes along to disagree with the science, the questions we should ask are: what credibility do they have, what evidence do they present, and have they published a peer-reviewed scientific paper or article on the subject? There is no shortage of people, some appearing to be quite rational, who wish to “debate” the facts of climate change. Such disinformation is often given credence from certain media outlets. But there is no debate about such facts any more than there is one about whether the earth is flat.

We may not want to believe that climate change is happening, or that we humans are responsible, so we may still wish to favor information to support this view. But such confirmation bias doesn’t help us understand the facts. Or to get closer to the truth.

How much land?

How much land would be needed to generate 50% of our energy needs from renewables such as solar and wind? An April 21, 2021 article by David Merrill in Bloomberg News provides some useful information. I learned that in order to fulfill President Biden's vision of an emission-free grid by 2035, the U.S. needs to increase its carbon-free capacity by at least 150%. Expanding solar and wind by 10% annually until 2030 would require the amount of land equal to the state of South Dakota. By 2050, when Biden wants the entire economy to be carbon-free, the U.S. would need up to four additional South Dakotas to develop enough clean power to run all the electric vehicles, factories, and more. 

Sounds like a lot, doesn't it? It's not quite so bad, though, because some solar can be installed on rooftops, and some wind farms can be built offshore. Also, nuclear and hydroelectric power can be added to the mix.

According to Forbes, renewables are already less expensive than fossil fuels. And dirty fossil fuels continue to enjoy some of the subsidies that they've received for the past 100 years. While it's true that renewable energy is only part of what needs to be a global solution, we have to get to zero emissions. Our future depends on it.

Another LTE - The Spherical Earth Hoax

Note - this is in response to the Brunswick Post's reader poll question.

Those “scientists” are at it again. They told us that the “pandemic” was bad and that we should be vaccinated. We all know what a hoax that was. And the whole climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions is another big one. But the biggest hoax of all is that the earth is round.

Any thinking person with a reasonable amount of common sense knows that it is flat. Yet the supposedly learned men and women have been saying for years that us flat-earthers are ones who are wrong. Here’s the thing: we true believers can’t even get any traction on the news. So many times, we’ve tried to arrange debates with scientists about the true nature of the earth’s flatness. We’ve tried to start by saying, “You say the earth is spherical, and we say it’s flat. Let’s debate.” But they don’t even seem to want to bother with us.

Okay, let me get a little more serious now. This was in response to today’s Post Reader Poll, ‘Do you believe that climate change is real and caused by carbon buildup?’ Why are we even debating such a thing? We no longer debate whether the earth is round, whether a virus caused the pandemic, or whether electricity exists because those things, like climate change, are scientifically proven.

The debate ought not to be whether it’s happening. That’s a given. It needs to be about what we should do about it. 

James Baker’s column got it mostly right. It’s a global problem, and the United States can’t solve it alone. But we can and should provide leadership to the rest of the world in order to resolve it. And of course, Republicans must get on board and engage on the issue. By establishing markets and incentives, our climate leadership can also be a boon to our economy.