The other uncertainty

Never mind climate science—what about climate economics? 6

The word "uncertainty" has become a bit of a bugaboo in green circles, since it's typically used by skeptics to muddy the waters on climate science. But uncertainty around climate science is not the only relevant kind when it comes to global warming.

There's also uncertainty with regard to how much it will cost to do something about it.

It seems to me this is woefully under-discussed. Virtually all public discussion of climate change has to do with the science -- whether global warming is real, how fast it's happening, the effects on sea levels, weather patterns, species, etc. The assumption seems to be that if we can nail down the science, policy will automatically follow.

Not so.

Consider: Steve Hayward cited an allegedly widely-held estimate that stabilizing global CO2 emissions at current levels will cost $37 trillion.

That's huge. It's enormous. Not global economic suicide, but not pretty either. We're not just talking about people giving up luxury SUVs. A figure like that represents widespread human suffering. If it was a choice between the globe warming by 1.4 degrees (the low-end estimate) and taking a $37 trillion hit, well ... it's certainly not an easy or obvious decision.

Other more optimistic folks think developing energy efficiency, clean energy, smart grids, and greener cities would, in the aggregate, boost the world economy, once you factor in better health, stabilized or lowered populations, saner weather, and a decrease in resource conflicts. If that's true -- if slowing or stopping global warming would be a net benefit to the world's economies -- then who the hell cares about lingering uncertainty in the science, right? It's worth doing on its own merits.

And here's the rub: It could be argued that the economics are harder to nail down than the science.

There's plenty of complexity involved with global climate, but at least there are some basic patterns following some basic physical laws. There are lots of known knowns and known unknowns, to use Rumsfeldian language. Predicting the economic impact of fundamentally changing the way human societies power themselves ... you've got to consider technological innovation, exact resource levels (peak oil, etc.), domestic politics in dozens of countries, international geopolitics, sociology, psychology, the exact effect of various forcings, the interplay of adaptation and mitigation ... it's endless. There are many, many unknown unknowns. I basically don't trust any prediction of the total cost.

But without a way to judge how much it will cost, how can we make a rational decision about how to proceed?

I suspect, in the end, we can't, and won't. Events will play out according to chance and contingency, like usual. We're just along for the ride. Hang on!

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. sunflower's avatar

    sunflower Posted 6:15 am
    24 Feb 2006

    The net cost of global warming abatement is zeroThe cost of global warming depends on ROI (return on investment) and environmental costs are off the balance sheets in China, India, USA, Australia, and among the poor.  I limit my research to 10% (or better) ROI.  The easy targets are: electricity used for heat, peak oil, peak natural gas, new home construction, new cars, electric light, windows and shutters.  The hard targets are: coal, oil refineries, tar sands, enhanced oil recovery, industrial process heat, electricity used for cooling old buildings.
    The cost of efficiency and solar thermal heat can do better than 10% ROI aimed at all these end-energy uses.  It is possible to heat and cool whole cities 100% of the time with district heating/cooling and seasonal heat storage (all off-the-shelf manufactured technology).   The current market is in the trillions of dollars in the USA.  The net cost of global warming abatement is zero because of positive ROI.  Jobs for everybody.  Got leadership?

    Permalink

  2. SMLowry's avatar

    SMLowry Posted 1:47 am
    25 Feb 2006

    I may be a simpleton, but . . .Maybe I'm being simplistic, but here's what I don't understand. In this country the Bush administration can ask for, and get, dramatic increases in expenditures for the war in Iraq -- far and above preliminary estimates. The money is there, somehow. Taxpayers will foot the bill. Then programs that benefit education, the poor, the uninsured, small business, the elderly, the environment are cut because the economy can't afford the costs. We all know that's crap. The economy can afford whatever those in power decide it can afford. Oil companies post unheard of profits -- do I recall something about a 46% profit recently? -- but we have no money for the environment? Given what we actually do know right now about climate change and it's impact on every ecosystem on the planet, how can anyone possibly quibble about the cost of dealing with it? The fate of the oceans alone should cause policymakers to faint dead in their tracks. The ocean absorbs CO2 -- roughly 118 million metric tons since the Industrial Revolution, with 20 to 25 million more tons being added daily (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) which changes pH, making it more acidic. An article in the Mar/April Mother Jones, "The Fate of the Ocean" contains this chilling statement: "Studies indicate that the shells and skeletons possessed by everything from reef-building corals to mollusks to plankton begin to dissolve within 48 hours of exposure to the acidity expected in the ocean by 2050." That's not that far away. How can we even consider the cost in dollars with a fate like that waiting just around the corner? I realize this is a rhetorical question, that the powers-that-be don't believe or don't care or somehow think that we'll muddle our way through and life will go on. And yet people who think like me are considered unrealistic or airheads or -- depending on what we do or say -- ecoterrorists. It's just unreal.

    Permalink

  3. odograph Posted 1:57 am
    25 Feb 2006

    total costIf you ask me "they" want you to think about "the cost" and add up a big number like $37 trillion.
    As I mentioned in a thread yesterday (or the day before) ... it is not in your (our) interest to do so.
    We are much better off noting, as Sunflower does, the first steps that provide a short-term ROI.
    "What do you mean cost?  I can save you money ... look here."

    Permalink

  4. odograph Posted 1:58 am
    25 Feb 2006

    Fess Up!Come on David, if you are accepting grants from the Bush administration to push these ideas, you should just admit it ;-)

    Permalink

  5. jdhlax Posted 8:05 am
    25 Feb 2006

    Government MoneyTo put SMLowry's comment another way:  As Alan Watts once said, the government claiming that it can't afford something is like a carpenter claiming that he can't finish your house because he ran out of inches!

    Jeff Hoffman

    Permalink

  6. birdboy Posted 10:54 am
    25 Feb 2006

    we'd like to help, but it's just too expensive...Dave makes an excellent point about the so-called 'cost' of reducing CO2 emissions, which we should shout from their housetop solar panels (since the media won't cover it). Economics and sociology are what you call 'fuzzy science' (no offense to those working in the field), but come on, how can you predict what people or nations will do? How can you separate human free will from these topics and possibly estimate the cost of any sweeping global or even national policy change? Have we ever done it accurately? I'd put more faith in a tarot reading.
    Surely human civilization is capable of making incredible changes to the way they interact with their environment, if they WANT TO. But this incredibly dismal estimate of the 'cost' of change is a clear statement that they (this administration) do not want to allow the change.



    a liberal in redsville

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement