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.”
( More stories )
Comments
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. 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.
4. jroooo | 05.25.08
A full Congressional Research Service report, co-authored by Larry Parker is available at http://www.opencrs.com/document/RL34489
5. 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.
6. Mike Higgins | 05.25.08
Regarding the comment from Stuart Lerner:
Forgetting about the experts (scientists) and trusting the information presented by Al Gore (a politician) about a scientific subject is at the root of the problem. Two critically important red flags should be immediately discernable when considering the information presented in An Inconvenient Truth — Al Gore is a POLITICIAN and the primary source of his claims is a report issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international POLITICAL organization.
It is impossible to discern the truth about anything if you limit your source of information to just one source, as you suggest. When you avail yourself of other points of view, you quickly learn that many of the “facts on the ground” are not really facts at all, but, in many cases, wild conjecture based on computer models, which are completely dependent on the assumptions entered into the computer. These so called “facts on the ground” are not based on empirical evidence.
I refer you to the petition signed by 31,000 American scientists at http://www.oism.org/pproject/ for a scientific repudiation of the theory of human-based global warming.
You cite the melting “Snows of Kilimanjaro” as an example of these “facts on the ground.” In fact, if you dig deeper into the subject, you will discover that the snows of Kilimajaro have been melting for 125 years, that the temperature at the summit never rises above freezing and “the true cause of the melting is a long term climate shift exacerbated by imprudent regional deforestation. It has nothing to do with global warming!”
This and 34 other inconvenient truths can be found in the report,
“35 Inconvenient Truths - The Errors in Al Gore’s Movie,” located at
http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=446.
For those who prefer to watch instead of read, I refer you to the excellent documentaries about this subject below made by scientists, not politicians. The future of our planet is NOT bleak when you realize that the entire premise of human-caused global warming (that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere cause global warming) is FALSE!
An Inconvenient Truth, or Convenient Fiction? - Part I
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7593305076218696987
An Inconvenient Truth, or Convenient Fiction? - Part II
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3501417433440839335
Climate Change - Is CO2 the Cause? - Part 1 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
Climate Change - Is CO2 the Cause? - Part 2 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
Climate Change - Is CO2 the Cause? - Part 3 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
Climate Change - Is CO2 the Cause? - Part 4 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno
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.
13. LK Voyles | 05.26.08
Mr. Higgins’s 31,000 scientists appear to be anyone with a BS degree or more, in any field related to science. I reviewed the list of petitioners and see a fair number of medical doctors and veterinarians who don’t really qualify as climate scientists. Frederick Seitz, the “granddaddy of global warming skeptics” was the leader or guru of the petitioners. Mr. Seitz was a former president of the National Academy of Sciences, but the NAS distanced itself from him after he and others published a report stating that carbon dioxide had no affect on climate. The report was designed to resemble an official NAS report, indicating a desire by Mr. Seitz to make the report appear legitimate even though it was not a NAS report. Mr. Seitz was also the cheif science advisor to R.J. Reynolds, and we’ve seen in the last decade how the tobacco companies misled the public by burying scientific information to protect profits. These facts alone bring Mr. Seitz’s conclusions, and the opinions of the 31,000 signatories, into serious question.
Here are links to information about global warming from three seperate and very credible sources:
1) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center. Obviously, plenty of data there for your review.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
2) The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4, dated November 2007) prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC was set up in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme. It’s constituency consists of government representatives, hundreds of scientists (yes, Mr. Higgins, they are elite because they are QUALIFIED climate scientists, not just anyone with a degree in “the sciences”), and the people.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
3)The Pew Center on Climate Change - From the home page….”The scientific community has reached a strong consensus regarding the science of global climate change. The world is undoubtedly warming, and the warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities.” Two notes of interest….First, the PCCC is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, which was founded by the family of political conservative Joseph Pew, who founded the Sun Oil Company. Bacically, the studies are funded by oil money. Second interesting point, Torsten Wiesel currently sits on the Board of Directors of the PCCC. He is President Emeritus of Rockefeller University and also a Nobel Prize winner.
http://www.pewclimate.org/about/history_and_mission
Thank you CSM for publishing information that is not biased. Just because one shines a light on an issue does not make them biased…it makes them part of the solution.
14. Keith | 05.30.08
Put your mouth over the tailpipe on your vehicle (while the motor is running). Breathe it in. Taste natural doesn’t it. If you think carbon emmisions are helping human existence then you probably are invested in oil. You might as well take out your check book and write a check to your favorite Middle Eastern country and reap the profits you garner from the demise of your fellow American. Take your head out of the sand and see that the way things have always been done ain’t working anymore. Next your going tell me that the water is not polluted either. Oh yeah, AIDS and Hepatitis are just convenient ways to keep the population in check.
15. Mike Higgins | 05.31.08
LK Voyles… Perhaps you missed the 9,000+ PhDs on the list. I refer you to the links I included in my first post for the scientific research supporting their point of view. I constantly wonder why alarmists spend their time attacking the messenger instead of the science. It makes on believe that their science is not very good.
Let me boil this down to its simplest form. This is not complex and it does not require a trained climatologist to understand this.
First, the ice core records for the past 10,000 years shows that the earth’s temperature has constantly been going up and down within a narrow range of about 2 degrees C. Even after all the warming of the last 250 years, today’s temperature is approximately in the middle of this range, so current temperatures are easily within the normal range of the past 10,000 years. There is no dispute about these records.
Second, and most importantly, where is the evidence that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming? … You certainly can not find it in the IPCC reports, including AR4. I refer you to the following link for a overview of the current scientific data on this point.
16. Adrian | 06.03.08
Mr. Higgins,
Re: “Second, and most importantly, where is the evidence that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming? … You certainly can not find it in the IPCC reports, including AR4. I refer you to the following link for a overview of the current scientific data on this point.”
I have attached the following text from the IPCC Fourth Assesment Report, Working Group One on the Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, Summary for Policy Makers, pg. 3 (see http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf):
The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.2). {2.3., 6.5, 2.9}
and from pg. 10:
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns (see Figure SPM.4 and Table SPM.2). {9.4, 9.5}
Note that “very likely” means 90-99% probability. Figure SPM.2 shows attribution of increased warming to each greenhouse gas, as well as other cooling and warming effects.
17. Mike Higgins | 06.26.08
Adrian,
Claims made in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report are NOT evidence, they are just claims… There is no data presented in the report to back up these claims. The IPCC is part of the UN, which is a political organization, not a scientific organization. Nowhere is all of its so-called scientific reports does it provide evidence that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere cause global warming.
In fact, the ice core and deep sea core records both show that temperatures have gone up and down for thousands of years and EVERY TIME it has, temperature has always risen before CO2 levels have risen. That would lead a thinking person to be very skeptical about claims that increased levels of CO2 cause temperatures to rise.
Please click on the links in my previous posts for the evidence for these conclusions.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
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.