Sunday, June 01, 2008

Cost of doing nothing about global warming: up to $3.6 trillion a year for losses in the U.S.


(Photo of damage from Hurricane Katrina from Flickr and and photographer SAsqrd/Steve.)

Weekly Angst: Every time I hear that it will cost too much to fight climate change and will “wreck the economy,” I say to myself (or sometimes out loud), “But what will it cost if we DON'T do anything?” So I was happy to see that Tufts University has just released a report on the cost of doing nothing, commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The study determined that continuing business-as-usual in terms of greenhouse gases could end up costing the U.S. economy as much as $3.6 trillion a year by the end of the century.

They also estimated that the cost of four major climate change impacts – coastal hurricanes, real-estate damage from rising seas, increased energy costs to meet hot temperatures, and water scarcity – would rise over time and could cost $1.9 trillion annually by 2100. The breakdown for that year:
• Hurricane damages $422 billion
• Real estate losses: $360 billion
• Increased energy costs: $141 billion
• Water costs: $950 billion

Other hard-hit sectors include tourism and agriculture.

“The longer we wait, the more painful and expensive the consequences will be,” said Dan Lashof, director of NRDC’s Climate Center.

The report predicted an average temperature increase of 13 degrees Fahrenheit in most of the U.S. in the next century and 18 degrees in Alaska, which is warming faster. Seas were predicted to rise 23 inches by 2050 and 45 inches by 2100, engulfing coastlines.

If global warming continues unchecked, the analysis found, New York City will have the climate of Las Vegas, and San Francisco will feel like New Orleans.

“Climate change is on a collision course with the U.S. economy,” warned Frank Ackerman, lead author of the study. The researchers used a new British model for figuring overall costs. They looked at economic losses, non-economic damages and the increased risk of catastrophe.

Climate disasters
And speaking of the increased risk of catastrophe, an op-ed piece in the New York Times Saturday by Charles M. Blow pointed out that we’re already experiencing more costly extreme weather disasters.

There have been four times as many weather disasters worldwide in the past 30 years as in the preceding 75, he said, citing the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. The U.S. has suffered most of them.

Of the 30 costliest hurricanes in the U.S. history, 10 have occurred since 2000, according to the National Hurricane Center. The worst year, of course, was 2005 (Katrina et al), with an estimated $39 billion loss.

Report’s recommendations

But getting back to the Tufts/NRDC report – it concludes with three overriding recommendations for action:
1. Enact comprehensive mandatory limits on global warming pollution to stimulate investment and guarantee that we meet emission targets.
2. Overcome barriers to investment in energy efficiency.
3. Accelerate development and deployment of emerging clean energy technologies.

Do it and do it now. Then we can avoid most of these costs (not all, though, because GHG in the atmosphere now will be there for many years.) And, of course, it’s not just financial cost. Think about the human cost of all these disasters. It’s mind-boggling.

Download the report.

(Sources: NRDC, Greenwire, New York Times)

4 comments:

SBVOR said...

Where to start in debunking this nonsense? Just throw a dart. It’s all garbage.

“Hurricane damages $422 billion”

Quoting the Houston Chronicle:

“One of the most influential scientists behind the theory that global warming has intensified recent hurricane activity [Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology] says he will reconsider his stand.”

“The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries.”

So, how can we witness a net increase of $422 billion in hurricane damages when hurricane frequency and intensity do no substantially rise?

Of course, “a dramatically warming world” is pure fantasy to start with.

Oh, and, where have all the killer hurricanes gone?

More later (maybe). I can only take so much of this nonsense at one sitting.

SBVOR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SBVOR said...

Part II of busting this nonsense:

“Real estate losses: $360 billion”

This purely political propaganda (er, sorry, “study”) is rooted in an assumption that:

“Our business-as-usual scenario forecasts 23 inches of sea-level rise by 2050 and 45 inches by 2100.”

Naturally, they offer, on that page, no cited source for that claim.

Deeper into their propaganda, we find them citing:

“Titus, J.G., et al. (1991), Greenhouse Effect and Sea-Level Rise: The Cost of Holding Back the Sea,”

This 17 year old paper vaguely refers to (without direct citation) “previous studies” which:

“suggest that the expected global warming from the greenhouse effect could raise sea level 50 to 200 centimeters (2 to 7 feet) in the next century.”

The simple fact is that alarmist predictions regarding sea level have steadily decreased since 1991. And, citing a 1991 paper which is so incredibly vague in citing its own sources is not exactly credible.

Even in the fantasy world of the IPCC, the latest “report” predicts that by 2100, sea levels will have risen by 0.18 to 0.59 meters (7 to 23 inches). See Table 3.1 on page 45 of this IPCC link.

But, when evaluating the IPCC predictions, one must take into account that their predictions are based upon deeply flawed computer models which make blind assumptions about water vapor feedback. The latest peer reviewed science directly contradicts those assumptions:

A) The media account

B) The summary from the University

C) The peer reviewed, published study

P.S.) I deleted my previous comment after finding and correcting an error in my comment.

SBVOR said...

Time for a commercial break…

With a 10 year cooling trend already on the books, and another 10 years of no warming forecasted (owing to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), all you climate alarmists had better become accustomed to counting on 17 year old papers vaguely citing other studies even older than that in order to scare your malleable target audience. See my previous comment.

While we’re on commercial break, you may want to take the time to further examine the side of the climate discussion you’ll never hear from The Leftist Media. You know, that Leftist bias in the media which has been objectively quantified by an academic at UCLA.

Now, back to further busting this laughably ludicrous “study” (maybe, later)…