Irwin claims that “Changes in how people live, and the technology they use, could both mitigate the impact of climate change and ensure that the costs are less about pure economic loss and more about rewiring the way civilization works.” However, he doesn’t note how the different social classes of society may be affected by climate change differently, because of their different capabilities to adapt to the new environment
In the capitalist society that we live in it is unreasonable to think that the technology we develop to alleviate the effects of climate change will be accessible to all. The poorer people in our nation will be the ones that will suffer the most. Because of this we will be highly vulnerable to one of the flaws of capitalism, that it inherently creates increasing inequality. The poor that will suffer from this will become increasingly poorer because of their lack of access to this adaptive future technology and the increasingly harmful effects from climate change.
Some economic side effects, of climate change may include an increase in unemployment and an increase in the disparity of income. This increase in inequality matters because it will cause the exploitation of workers, which gives the capitalist class control over the state, because of their greater financial resources permitting them to influence the political system in a much greater way. It also is important because it affects the capitalist economy because it suppresses the consumer demand.
2
Irwin's analysis, while valid, is off the mark. He assumes that these are all questions of production, but that increasing production and economic growth are desirable. They are not. He notes the inequality in who is adversely affected by climate change, but ignores the inherent and increasing inequality in the continuing economic growth model.
He correctly cites climate-reduced productivity of farmland, but ignores the social and economic side effects - increased food costs and mass population displacement (e.g. Syria).
The incorrectly cites a washed out road as a temporary problem, whose repair will at least produce some economic activity, but ignores the fact that the same road will continue to wash out repeatedly from the same causes.
As for reinvesting in a power grid to make it more resilient to extreme weather, he entirely ignores basic questions: how are we producing that electricity in the first place. How will we change that to reduce precisely the climate effects which requires the grid to be rebuilt?
His use of discounting to compare present and future value makes sense, provided that the different choices available all make sense. Perhaps, for homo economicus, it is rational to despoil the planet now and not worry about our future descendants. However, that is not sustainable and it is not moral.
Our ability to adapt quickly is limited. Trees can't move with the warming climate. Similarly, big, flood-prone coastal cities can't relocate to higher ground.
4
I believe there's a typo where it says "using a 5 percent discount rate, I think it should said ".5 percent":
In the Obama administration’s analysis, using a 5 percent discount rate — which would put comparatively little weight on the well-being of future generations — would imply a social cost of $12 (in 2007 dollars) for emitting one metric ton of carbon dioxide. A metric ton is about what would be released as a car burns 113 gallons of gasoline. A 2.5 percent rate would imply a cost of $62, which adds up to hundreds of billions of dollars a year in society-wide costs at recent rates of emissions.
@Nina - Nope it's not a typo. Google "discount rate" to better understand. A higher discount rate "discounts" the future value.
The US with its love of gas guzzling giant fuel inefficiant V8 cars. Which turns gas into noise and a small amount of power, is a major caise of climate changing gasses. The US if firmly to blame for at least 20 percent of the worlds climate gas emmissions and needs to take drastic action to reduce them. We live on one planet, which we are currenently destroying. We have no where else to go. My condolences for having Trump for president, however, he is very amusing, I wonder if Melania has a very large Lie box where he has to put a dollar in each times he lies or distorts the truth.
@David
David:
Until you stop driving a car, put solar panels on your roof, stop eating meat , you are forbidden to comment about global warming!!!
Economic projections decades into the future will surely have too many variables to accurately determine the effects of anthropogenic global warming. The models require valid inputs and economic models seem to assume that energy to run the economy will always be present in sufficient quantities. Energy is the key stone of any economy.
Considering that fossil fuels have about five decades of viability with current consumption rates, the future economic prospects will be limited by a lack of high density, easily transportable energy. Future fuels will be less energy dense, much more expensive and less user friendly—and that seems to be left out of the equations.
While I find the economics of climate change interesting and important from an academic perspective, limiting the discussion to only humans is a bad sign for the planet. It demonstrates how easily we are distracted.
The impact on the rest of earth’s species is the real story (tragedy?) here...not the potential pain inflicted on the only animal around with an opportunity to do something about it. As noted, humans are very adaptable, with the ability to move and create new shelter. Unfortunately, most species cannot adapt quickly.
This column is great as an academic exercise. But, I believe, it misses the bigger, much more important, point.
The entire planet is involved...not just the people. Every thoughtful, informed human knows in their heart that fundamental change is needed to address climate change. Many also understand that this must occur at a rapid pace. What are we waiting for?
We’re waiting for platforms like the NTY and it’s contributers to speak to the really big issue (can the planet and its inhabitants survive in a world similar to what we have now), not whether the investment will be “worth it” for whatever and whoever is left in 20 or 30 or 50 years.
Economics can’t help us when it comes to choosing a path forward here. It will only distract us from the more important moral issue. Do we sell out our kids and their heirs for our comfort, or do we clean up or own mess?
6
@Dave Zoumarash
The US wide pension crisis will cause more short term and long term damage to your kids future then climate change!!!
Mr. Irwin's article is thoughtful and alarming. De-carbonation of our economy must be implemented on a mammoth scale to make an impact. But as an energy conservation professional, I disagree with the press's parroting of recycled "Think-Tank Talk" to leverage carbon taxes as the savior-solution. Taxation won't work as intended as politicians will earmark new tax revenue to offset shortfalls in "core programs." This is proven in and example within the state of Connecticut where the Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund (funded by energy customers through utility bill fees to fund energy conservation projects) was raided (in 2018) by the legislative body to divert funds the general state coffers to offset shortfalls in tax revenue. Taxing Carbon won't work because the funds will not be used by politicians as the voters intended!
The bipartisan government body must drive the the next high-efficiency/low-carbon revolution by working to require super-efficiency standards for new and existing building stock, restoring the Obama-era CAFE standards, raising the bar on utility-scale renewable energy projects and rejuvenating our 30% efficient, 20th century power grid with smart, micro-grid technologies.
3
@KM - well, using Connecticut as a one-off is not "proving" anything, other than that Connecticut managed to put a fund in reach of state legislators, with a big "I'm a piggy bank" sign on it.
The lesson isn't that carbon pricing won't work, it's that you now have an example of how not to do it. Try looking at different plans like this one.
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/blog/
Carbon taxes/carbon price isn't "savior-solution" either. It's a strong signal that allows consumers and corporations to make plans and choices that finally include a clear cost base (and schedule for increase) for carbon emissions we need to stop.
It's part of the set of tools needed to keep things moving along. Along with efficiency standards and other methods to decarbonize.
A. Cars are not necessary for people who live in temperate climates (hello, Los Angeles!) E-bikes will do the trick and vastly reduce carbon emissions (and traffic, and make people thinner.)
B. If the insect die off continues there isn't much hope for the future of mankind.
3
@Keith Alt.... Let's be honest. You're not being a realist here. We created this debacle of urban sprawl and we need to fix it with carbon-neutral transportation, housing and manufacturing. Got any concrete ideas?
WHY has there been almost nothing in the NY Times (or anywhere else for that matter) about the confirmation of former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler as the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency?? Most people you ask would probably know who Scott Pruitt is, but do they know who Andrew Wheeler is? Are people aware of his plans to weaken and eliminate air and water pollution regulations, to allow greater exposure to toxic chemicals, and to fight efforts to combat climate change?
11
@Martha
Relax, Martha!
How can 113 gallons of gas emit a metric ton of CO2 if the gasoline itself only weighs 712 pounds?
@Michael - Oxygen must be combined with the gasoline to release it's energy. It takes about 23 pounds of oxygen to enable combustion of one gallon of gasoline. The resultant combustion releases about 19 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gasoline. 113 times 19 = a pretty big number.
1
@Michael...what's the energy intensity of the entire cycle of making a gallon of gasoline, transporting it to the distribution center, transporting it to the gas station and then the carbon from burning it in a pickup truck?
1
All these projections are based on one thing- CO2. We have been bombarded for decades with the false idea that CO2 is the culprit and refuse to consider that it is just a natural phenomenon of nature. Instead of wasting all that money on trying to stop CO2 or scrubbing it from the atmosphere we should be looking at the other more reasonable, long-term ideas for adapting.
The utilities are starting to get the idea but they are looking only at the prospect of modifying their electrical lines for 'green' energy. The obvious thing to do is to put all transmission lines underground where weather events cannot interrupt and inconvenience millions of consumers. Don't tell me that it can't be done. It can if we put are minds to it.
There is no shortage of water in this world. There is a flood control problem and a water distribution problem. We should have learned by now how to control water flow due to heavy rain and storm surges. Such water can be corralled stored and piped to drier areas. We have excellent pipeline experience and can store water in natural as well as man-made reservoirs. There is no excuse, as in California, for allowing excess water to flow into the sea.
1
@Mike - the projections are based on science, and on measurements, and on the very real effects of aerosols, sulfur emissions, land use changes, but most importantly, the effects of increasing persistent greenhouse gases like CO2, methane and the short-term greenhouse gas, water vapor - a very potent greenhouse gas that increases as a feedback to increased temperature.
For billions of years, the greenhouse effect kept the Earth's surface - most of the time - well above the freezing temperatures that would otherwise be the case at this distance from the sun.
Big drops in persistent greenhouse gas concentration have caused "Snowball Earth" events that sent ice sheets all the way to the equator - and they would have remained except for the later buildup, over very long times, of volcanic CO2. Here's a bit from 2005 about this: http://www.caltech.edu/news/evolutionary-accident-probably-caused-worst-snowball-earth-episode-study-shows-1026
Big increases in the past have heated the surface, created oxygen-free zones in most of the ocean while acidifying the water, too, and caused large-scale extinction events on land and in the oceans. Look up the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum for an illustration.
Regarding your weird idea of turning the US into a big water container, how, exactly, do you define "excess water flowing into the sea" - stop giving "our" water to the oceans?
Adapting without stopping the root cause of all these problems is an expensive treadmill to avoid.
@Mike
Many solutions are simple, easy, and wrong. Yours are complex, expensive and wrong.
In combination, high levels of atmospheric and oceanic CO2, 7 to 9 billion humans, and a decent standard of living are incompatible. If we keep increasing CO2 levels, we'll lose many people and/or lower our standard of living. That's why we should keep the carbon in the ground.
Yes, burying electrical lines underground can be done, only in some places, not others, and for at least 5 times the cost of putting them above-ground. Again, there are simpler, less expensive solutions, like shifting from unsustainable to sustainable energy production.
There is a finite amount of water in the world. Where it is (underground aquifer, in bodies of water, or in the atmosphere) and whether it is fresh or salt, clean or contaminated, fit or unfit for agriculture or for human consumption, are the big issues. Storing, transporting and treating water are doable but expensive, and often have undesirable side effects.
Your state "there is no excuse ... for allow excess water to flow into the sea". That entirely ignores the value of that flow. What may be a loss of usable water to a farmer in an arid region may also be a necessity for the fisherman who depends on fish that hatch upstream, swim downstream to the ocean to live, and return upstream to spawn the next generation.
It's generally easier and cheaper to adapt to and live with Nature than to re-engineer it. Nature commanded is Nature obeyed.
Perhaps some of these genius economists can explain why the green energy companies that Obama spent countless billions of taxpayer dollars on went bankrupt, at huge cost to us taxpayers but at no cost to Obama’s donors who got government money
Humanity's future is at risk & we are dithering.
5
Humans inhabited all geographic areas except Antarctica at the time of European contact
So I think we are pretty adaptable
Apparently increases in CO2 improves plant physiology specifically drought survival in arid zones
So we’ve got that going for us
Which is nice
I think people in the know are those we should heed. And if you look at what the leaders in finance and industry are doing, it is clear that the best strategy is to maximize earnings now, including not taking steps to address possible future global warming that would affect profits now. Then later you can take the profits that you've amassed to address the impact of global warming. For example, you could sell your homes in New York City and Florida and buy a retirement home in British Columbia and your stock and bond portfolios could be gradually redirected to economies in the Northern latitudes, such as Canada or even Russia. I've heard even now Russia is drawing the interest of real estate investors in the know.
Mr. Irwin,
After reading the comments to your piece, I observe that the very serious question of how we can restore the greenhouse gases to preindustrial levels and avoid catastrophic economic dislocation of the investment and huge number of employees that are currently working in fossil fuels. Just think about it there are 10s of millions of people who make there primary incomes off of mining, drilling, fracking, pipelining, refining, shipping and distribution of fossil fuels. Passenger cars and trucks, railroads, diesel engines, aircraft engines. This will be the most dramatic transformation in economic history, much more of a transformation than occurred after the huge amount of destruction in WWII.
I have been reading the history of the decisions that led to the institutions created by Bretton Woods-Dumbarton Oaks to get some idea about the decisioning that created the World Bank, the U.N., the IMF, GATT (WTO). I am reading this history and the statements made by experts like John Maynard Keynes, who played a key role, to get some idea when the light switched on.
It is becoming clear to me that there must be international funding to research, develop, test and compete systems to replace fossil energy. I think the cost of the shift must be carefully managed to prevent national economic chaos and military actions.
My vote is for very cheap solar electric power, With cheap electricity, we can desal water, scrub the atmosphere of CO2, make jet fuel from air & water.
6
@james jordan yes!! We should have done this years ago
2
This entire well-meaning article reflects a fundamental set of assumptions that drastically understate the risks.
First, The question: how permanent are the costs?overlooks the problem that the costs will continue to unfold over multiple generations. As far as individual humans are concerned, the costs will be permanent.
Secondly, the question how should we value the future versus the present? drastically understates the costs right here and now. The costs are already immense, but many politicians and conventional approaches to business choose, conveniently to ignore them.
Thirdly, the question can we adapt? fails to take into account the problem of trying to adapt to an ever-worsening scenario. Conventional understandings of adaptation, mitigation, and resiliency all fail to comprehend this key point
8
@Ben Lieberman
You make good sense. While we may be able to adapt to the end of this century, the next century will see the end of civilization.
"...how to value the future versus the present." Using that model to make decisions is tragically stupid. We must correct our environmental behavior. No to do so closes out the possibility of a livable future. Those who win or lose economically are far less relevant than survival.
2
Wait a sec! I was told by credible Republicans that this whole climate change thing was a hoax! So I guess I win again! I am getting tired of winning!
2
It is amazing that economists still miss the mark when it comes to our future. The issue of climate change pales in comparison to our world population growth problem. Has any economist asked how much each human being contributes to climate change (for starters) by virtue of our own heat and CO2 generating metabolism? How about the unavoidable climate costs of feeding and transporting an exponentially growing population? Politicians and the media seem to think there is some magical solution such as carbon taxes on industry that will "fix" the situation. The real problem of utmost urgency is population growth and the fact that the economy is fundamentally based upon ordained population growth. Growth, growth and more growth is the mantra of economists and the masses. But in the end overpopulation will kill our planet long before the effects of climate change come into play. Resources such as water, arable land, etc. are not unlimited as is space for human habitation itself. But economists don't get it and politicians don't want to hear it. And of course religions largely make excuses for foolish behavior. They simply point fingers at some perceived demons (communists, terrorists, socialists, the devil, etc.) and keep sucking resources at the expense of the planet and her peoples. Climate change may be a fact of life but overpopulation doesn't have to be if economists didn't have their collective heads in such a deep dark hole.
8
@LH Economists understand about overpopulation, resource limits etc, though there is a large problem with the economists being influenced by the political suicide of policies which would reduce the rate of growth of the economy or population. It is psychologically much more comfortable for an economist to believe the excuses against trying to reverse growth and wealth.
Politicians understand a lot more than they let on too. But they can not do their job and face facts at the same time.
A fundamental problem that is too often overlooked, Largely absent from the critical discussions
@LH Given that 85% of agricultural land is used producing food for animals rather than human beings and if we modified our diets to be much more healthy by eating much less beef and lamb we could feed the current world population and its projected rise to 10 - 11 billion before it starts to fall, without to much difficulty. But it would mean a small steak not more than once or twice a month. How about it?
3
Conservative readers with less than an hour to spare, please consider taking a look at two videos by potholer54 - aka Peter Hadfield, an English journalist who had once worked as a geologist in offshore petroleum exploration.
His standard process is to look at claims made and to compare them to evidence. And then he provides references to the evidence. One takeaway I got from them is he's disappointed in the United States essentially handing over leadership in some of the biggest industries of this century to China.
"A CONSERVATIVE solution to global warming parts 1 and 2".
Here's the link to part 1, and it links to part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0&feature=youtu.be
1
The underlying issue that is driving this problem is the one that politicians are completely unwilling to mention, let alone face: human overpopulation. There needs to be far fewer of us, yet the moment anyone dares to suggest a population policy for the planet, it is met with shrieks about attacks on individual liberty.
The right to reproduce as much as anyone and everyone who wishes to reproduce wants has got to go, objections be damned. Ignoring this will lead to resource wars and even more choices and lives being violently taken away.
Of course, almost no one wants to even think about this, so the most that will come of it is a comment like this one, and dystopian science fiction stories. I say, at least bring those on. That may lead to more voters thinking seriously about this problem, because when the Earth's ecosystem can't accommodate all of the demands that humankind places on it, it simply won't.
4
@Stephanie C. Fox I agree. I think it is a tactical error to use famine, irresistable refugee hordes, resource wars and destruction of arable land and coastal cities as scary monsters. We should be promoting planning to use those things as opportunities not disadvantages. That at least gets the understanding of what is happening out there. I'm not confident understanding would lead to significant change in habits but it would not hurt.
1
@Stephanie C. Fox A few facts, the fertility rate in the USA, Europe Russia and Japan is below, or well below replacement level. We will need those immigrants. Large families are an overhang from high infant mortality which is much reduced now due to improved medicine.
What, time and again has been shown to be the most effective way of reducing fertility is to educate girls, keep them in school and help them to be economically independent. Quite often this has the effect that they have no children at all because men do not want to marry women better educated than themselves.
@Simon White Thank you. I have tried both repeatedly, and few people show any interest. The majority seem to prefer to focus on climate change while ignoring human overpopulation. The problem is that too many can't resist the biological urge to see their own DNA repeated in another human being, regardless of the consequences to that human being.
From a risk management point of view, it is a good idea to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as fast as possible because there clearly are some possible outcomes of climate change that we are going to be unable to live with.
3
This is useful, but it suffers from a fatal flaw. It addresses "discount rates." Then we get to quibble over our recent President's sense of the right discount rate and our current President's. Once you start using this approach to the Earth, you are telling your children or grandchildren (depending on which discount rate you chose) that their future is worth zero to you.
We should be thinking about the Earth the way we think about a savings account. Right now we are (literally) burning though the savings the Earth has stored for us. We are "living off the principal." What we ought to be doing is investing in the Earths's systems (forests, energy efficiency, healthy oceans) and living off the interest the Earth will willingly share with us.
6
At least this article is a confirmation of what I have been saying for a number of years, "The only thing that will kill the stock market is climate change". To believe that a carbon tax of any kind will alter human behavior enough to save the planet, I find laughable. Awarding a populace for consuming less is antithetical to Capitalism. Humans are heat engines. To believe that humans will sacrifice their living standards to curtail climate change is like believing that perhaps Narnia does exist. One has to realize that when saying climate change is an "existential threat", this also means that the total environmental condition of the earth permeates into the subconscious of the mind. We missed our opportunity to learn from the Native Americans our true connection, yes I dare to say, our spiritual connection to the earth. If one believes there is a matrix energy connection between us and the earth, then what we do to the earth, we do to ourselves. So then the question becomes, "Will a sick earth create a universal sick psyche?". The bottom line; are the people of the earth going insane?
@Gibbons "Awarding a populace for consuming less is antithetical to Capitalism." Really? Isn't capitalism about investing money where it earns a return?
ComEd pays me to reduce power consumption during peak hours in summer. It's called demand management and it's also something that power-hungry businesses are using, when applicable, to help their bottom line.
You see, deregulation led to many utilities no longer owning the generation - they just own the transmission and distribution side - the wires and transformers and substations that connect producer and consumer.
These utilities increase their return on investment by selling more power without adding more infrastructure. Power demand varies quite a bit, their infrastructure has to be able to deliver during peak times, so much of the time all that expensive system is used way below capacity.
So paying customers (including businesses) to avoid demand during peaks, by limiting use or by shifting the use to off-peak, lets the utility avoid having to build and maintain more capital equipment.
Smart meters and demand management, plus the coming shift to electric cars, have utilities kind of cheerful - they see a way to sell more power without adding more expensive wires. How?
Demand overnight is low, but wind still blows. If a zillion batteries are charging at night, then utilities can buy cheap wind, bill their customers for filled batteries, and profit from increased off-peak demand.
That's capitalism.
1
The investment pathway that would have the greatest benefit would be in technologies that would improve the quality of life, improve air quality, and reduce a good portion of fatalities and injuries on the highways.
E.g., an all-weather, 300 mph, no emissions, superconducting Maglev guideway system built along the rights-of-way of the Interstate Highway System that had the capability of carrying both passengers and much of the interstate freight trucks as proposed by the late Senator Pat Moynihan, see www.magneticglide.com would reduce the wear and tear on our highways, and reduce the congestion in and around our major population centers would benefit all Americans.
In the conservatively calculated economic benefits that I have calculated a national maglev network would save every American about $1,000, annually, in reduced cost of goods sold and cost of travel for their lifetime.
Government development and testing of this new transport system, the first since the airplane, as a public carrier, would cost less than 300 million dollars a year for about 4 years, or about $1 dollar per person per year for 4 years. The very efficient, no friction system, would carry freight at 10 cents per ton mile and passengers at 5 cents per ton mile at an electric power cost of 10 cents per kwhr.
The return on investment makes this system very bondable and just from building a maglev route form NYC to Chicago, a high traffic truck route would pay for a national maglev network.
1
The carbon-reduction methodology of fee and dividend is the right way to go and so are the questions raised in this article.
But we have to go beyond them and consider what type of global governance is possible when the looming climate catastrophe becomes a real catastrophe. I have been suggesting the possibility of using the international monetary system to deal with the looming climate catastrophe by basing the unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system on the carbon standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person and a balance of payments system that accounts for both financial and ecological (climate) debts and credits. The initial conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" (www.timun.net). What is needed to have young and older scientists seriously engage with the concept of the Tierra Fee and Dividend system Mr. Irwin with his background in monetary economics and central banking could be part of this scientific effort.
Declared an outstanding economist and climate specialist about this carbon-based international monetary system: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.” Bill McKibben, May 17, 2011
The Upper Midwest is the place to live or locate your business. No wildfires, no hurricanes, no coastal flooding. Not climate related, but no earth quakes either.
3
Climate change will affect the economy because the economy is largely dependent on fossil fuels but what I often see missing in the analyses is the impact of global warming on the global economy. In my view, the importance of the U.S. will be how well we can use our laboratories and research universities to develop non-fossil systems that will make life better for everyone and will be successful in global markets.
When we elevate our thinking to the global scale, it seems to me that we should sponsor a Manhattan Project scale effort to develop non-fossil electricity to provide the energy required for 11 Billion people by the end of the Century.
Just to provide a quality of life for the 11 Billion at half the annual consumption of the U.S. per capita is an enormous challenge. I think it can be done but the known options are limited because of geography and limitations of Earth-bound systems.
Dr. James Powell and his colleagues have proposed a space-based system to collect the energy from the Sun 24/7 and beam the energy to fields of antennae near population centers for grid distribution.
Powell believes and has designed a system for launching payload very cheaply using a Maglev launch system and he calculates the wholesale price of this energy in today's dollars to be 2 cents per KWHR, which would be very competitive. It will require lots of satellites and lots of launches but it can be done.
With cheap electricity, we will need tech to scrub the atmosphere of CO2.
2
@james jordan
Dear Mr. Jordan,
I am with you on the wisdom of a Manhattan project for energy. However the space based power is not realistic in my view, nor is the chance of scrubbing carbon dioxide from the air. There is too much up there and is so dilute that you cannot get at it.
1
@Edward Wolf
Edward Wolf if you will contact me through www.magneticglide.com I will send you a copy of Spaceship Earth so that you can go through the engineering design concept for the Maglev Launched Space Solar concept and why we have chosen that over the other options. The Swiss have a scrubber and we included a design for a carbon dioxide scrubber that could cost less. There is so much carbon in the atmosphere that we think it will be difficult to bring the level back to the Earth's natural absorption rates even if the world stops generating greenhouse gas immediately. I was attracted to the economics: 2 cents per KWHR would be very competitive and allow the World to maintain or improve its standard of living. Dr. John Mankins tested beaming low-energy microwave energy when he was at NASA.
Just calculate the primary energy requirement for 11 Billion people at about half of the current U.S. per person rate and you will see it is a super challenge. I think we are in a race to head off an exponential increase in global warming gases when the Arctic permafrost begins to thaw.
We agree on International Mobilization. Sort of an internationally funded ARPA for non-fossil energy.
1
@james jordan rather than going into space we have plenty of solar power reaching earth, not always where we want it. Covering a relatively small proportion of the worlds deserts with solar collection could replace the fossil fuel we currently use. It could be distributed either by cable or by conversion to hydrogen. The technologies are developing and could be brought forward quickly with a Manhattan type commitment,
Our present day problem is that the people who have the power to make decisions in favor of mitigating climate change are not long-game players. They are myopically interested in tomorrow, the next week, but not years from now. And they are even less interested in their countrymen and their well-being. Their primary interest has proven to be their immediate employment, their exchequer, face-saving, and their political party. A far cry from what really matters...
7
@Timothy L. Pennell - well, except for the cooling stratosphere, the warming troposphere, the planet-wide loss of mountain ice, the strong decline in Arctic ice in late summer, the increased rate of warming near the poles, the increased number of warm records and decline in number of cold records, the warmer nights, the intensification of rainfall events, and the fact that the predicted temperature trends for a given amount of emissions has been well within bounds of error.
Oh, and the four consecutive warmest decades in the climate record being the four most recent - continued warming despite slight decrease in solar radiation during the same time.
7
Does this article as the right questions, the writer certainly makes a good start. Particularly in identifying some of the questions needing answers. I would suggest there are questions we haven't even thought to ask. I am not an economist or climate scientist. I did spend about 5 years of my work life examining alternative solutions to public policy and constructing cost benefit analysis. For me, the biggest take away from this article is to remember it does not matter what answers you get, if you are not asking the right questions. Oh yes and the clock is running!
@ek perrow What are the questions?
I would guess that we (and our descendants) should anticipate substantially greater climate change than analysts and policy makers use in their models. It seems to me that the more we learn, the greater the expected change and the more timid and ineffectual the global response seems. All kinds of arguments have been tried to energize an urgent global response to try to limit climate change and they have failed. Economic calculations seem to me to be equally likely to fail to generate the popular will to limit climate change.
2
While this article concentrates on climate change's effect on major economic drivers what is missing is the economic effect of massive migrations within the country and those leaving and entering. Looking at the economic history of the Dust Bowl may be instructive.
Massive migration and conflict over property rights, I predict, will be a major economic result.
6
@RLG. Except that massive migration was supposed to have happened 10 years ago. The science is settled!
I lived in the 1950’s and I don’t remember any cars or houses that weren’t made because of Cold War spending. The Cold War spending is what enabled us to buy the cars and houses.
About half a century ago I read a book called 'Fuel Policy' about the mix of fuels (coal, oil, gas, nuclear) to be used in the nationalized UK electric power net. That assumed a discount rate of 10% which must have led to a considerable underinvestment. Coal and steel production and British Rail were nationalized industries that suffered from the same discount rate.
The discount rate should be near the long term interest rate and might now be 3% in US, as chosen by the Obama administration. Choosing 7% a fraud.
4
Trying to estimate the impact of warming on our economy 90 years from now is a fool's errand. But of course, these are economists.
To get a 10% loss in GDP in 2010 due to climate change assumes we know what rate our GDP will grow. At avg of 3% annually for 90 years, GDP will increase 14.3X -- a 10% reduction from that would be 2.88% annually = total growth of 12.87X. Now, who believes economists can be that precise re what the avg annual growth rate will be.
Further -- don't you think if we get warmer (assuming GW is happening which I doubt) areas that were not useable for agriculture etc., would become useable? Wouldn't growing seasons get longer? The supposition that we won't be able to produce as much food is not very logical.
As for roads -- they have to be rebuilt regardless. Why do you see construction on almost every major highway all the time. The question would be -- how much more frequently would repairs be required. And if we had to rebuild I-95 would that be bad? OR -- just think - maybe if people drive less and buy more locally, there won't be as much traffic, fewer trucks, thus less wear and tear.
Improving the grid would be a good thing -- right?
No one knows what will happen over the next 90 years. There are probably a zillion variables that may impact economic growth over 90 years and zillions of interactions among them.
But no one reading this will be around 90 years to see if the prediction is correct. Very convenient.
3
Carbon tax is premature only because there are few good alternatives on the market like electric cars. We need such alternatives first or in close chronology. Limiting emissions is a fool’s errand, there’s already too much carbon in the environment and we need to remove some. There are credible approaches for this but we have to get started. We are runnning out of petroleum and will have to act soon. Some things can only use petroleum like air travel and making synthetic materials so petroleum and natural gas need to be rationed and soon. Coal is more abundant but limited. We’re running out of anthracite too. Most of all we need a comprehensive solution to all of these related problems AND we need to give up diagnosing the problems, we know them. We need to talk more openly about solutions.
2
The first question is:
Are you will to change how to live so that we all can live?
Almost no one will really answer yes.
Meat once a week. No A/C. No Planes. No convenience foods.
Smaller houses. Fewer hot showers.
What we must do in the next 6-8 yrs is almost draconian. Change is happening that fast and that big.
6
@Louis J
Air conditioning is unnecessary if the houses and other buildings are well designed. I read about a town in the Thar desert in India, built centuries ago, that might serve as an example.
Convenience food has been around for little more than half a century and is a major contributor to the excessive weight of many people. Let's get rid of it and learn to cook again.
Why shouldn't houses be smaller when many people live alone or when a family has only one or two children.
You need fewer hot showers if you cloth yourself appropriately. I remember reading about Israeli research in the effect of the colour, white or black, of traditional Arab dress. It didn't matter - the air flow up the dress was stronger with a black dress and the wearer was just as comfortable. It is daft to continue wearing the type of men's cloths that were developed by British gentlemen in the time of Napoleon when the climate is so much different. Women already have more freedom to cloth themselves appropriately.
1
I agree with comments that using economic calculations to estimate the exact cost of our society's existence is ridiculous. The question should be instead, "is our Planet and way of life worth saving, then is so we will pay whatever is required to do so and in the time period left to do so? My larger concern is that our current capitalist society with fossil fuel industry and consumers have so much power CAN we change quickly enough to save ourselves? Barry Commoner, an environmentalist from the 70s, used to say that the most profitable industries were the highest polluters. We are going to have to go to a socialist model and not just for national healthcare insurance but for our industrial industry as well or we are toast.
6
@john, what if we made it more profitable to heal the planet than to harm it?
@behip That can only be done within a system you can control. A government could do it within its term but it would be then be replaced by a govt which promised to reverse their policies.
Avoiding global warming could have been done relatively cheaply if it were started in the 80s when the problem changed from a theoretical huge risk to an undeniable huge risk. But close to zero was done then, as it is now. The US car fleet has precisely the same fuel economy as they did after the oil crisis, it has been a flat line all through. Actually it is worse, because the thirstiest vehicles have been concealed by classified as "light trucks". GW is a political problem not a tech problem.
At some point in the future, the population growth will meet the declining ability of the earth to feed humans. Some have projected peak human population (assuming people continue to eat other animals, which seems likely) to be 10-11b, which should occur sometime around 2050. At this point, extra babies born to poorer people will simply starve, as will older people who have become too feeble to work. If humanity continues to power its civilizations with carbon fuels, the ability of the earth to sustain the human population will continue to decline. I imagine this will lead to a great deal of armed conflict.
As they say, the universe will either learn ya or kill ya.
3
@Andrew IF that happens, it will be in Africa or Asia. North America will be fine regarding overpopulation.
Calculating discount rates is a dangerous game when it comes to Mother Nature. Any discount rate above zero basically assumes that at some point in the not too distant future the entire planet has zero value. I am positive future generations will not be pleased with that. We have to get serious about the idea of sustainability which means leaving the planet in as good if not better shape than we left it. ‘Sustainable Development’ - development that meets the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Discount rates are useful for man-made capital but not for natural capital. Traditional Economic thinking is what got us into this mess. Traditional Economic thinking is not going to get us out of it. Climate change will cost us. It already has. We need new institutions and new mindsets of value to turn this around. We also have to acknowledge and face limits - limits on how we use non-renewable resources, limits on the total size of the human population, etc. The 1972 ‘Limits to Growth’ report was right. The Business as usual model still matches reality.
14
Climate change is happening and people can't deny it anymore. There are s many affects from climate change that people aren't realizing. Not only are crops being threatened and roads being flooded, but species are also dying. There are many species out there that can't adapt to these higher temperatures. Lets take coral for example, coral is a threatened species. Coral is this beautiful species that lives in the ocean and all of it is dying because the water is way too warm. Coral are the homes of many different fish, are food for many different fish, and if we let that go away a lot of other species are going to die out as well.
4
No.
We cannot adapt.
It just gets hotter and hotter
as first some,
and then eventually all of us perish.
That is the science.
Talk of adaptation is dangerously irresponsible.
Adaptation to what?
A galloping increase in temperature
that will easily overwhelm our attempts to catch up with it?
And then what? Goodbye food production. Goodnight moon.
The sooner it's blazingly clear to all that it is now or never on climate, the sooner we can begin to address
the callously criminal waste of time by our world leaders,
led first and foremost (how fitting)
by our personal buffoon with flaming hair.
If so many sound angry, it's because our future is linked directly to that narcissistic madman, and so are all of our children's.
It's not really his fault. He is not capable of grasping the issue. I'd no more expect a toddler to step up and run the space program.
But it is our fatal error that we have waited so long to pry his fingers from the wheel of our ship of state.
I follow the science closely, as do so many others.
The rocks are just ahead, if we're not sunk already.
This isn't funny.
Please help us get an adult in charge.
And stop, in gods name,
going on about adaptation.
12
We have all read stories of the Jews who refused to leave Germany in the 1930s, not believing their homeland could become so savage. (Many, of course, could not afford to leave, but others had the chance.) I think of those people now when I hear of someone I know having a baby. We all want the life we are used to, that we have planned for, or that our parents had. The future doesn't care.
10
Will GOP leaders in Midwest states proposed a Wall in the future that keeps fleeing (now employed and needy) West Coast families at bay? Will Mexico seem preferable to the Texans fleeing hurricanes, flooding, drought...? Just ironic conjectures.
5
I am pleased that the majority of comments acknowledge the urgency of climate change mitigation and the discussion of possible actions.
But this article and our responses ignore a simple fact: the rest of the world is not stupid. They see that the US is among the biggest emitter of gases that cause global warming. And they will hold accountable.
Instead of acknowledging our complicity and making sacrifices to change our lifestyle, we instead are declaring the rest of the world our enemy and giving them the finger.
They will remember.
In the age of pocket sized nukes, roll-your-own bio-weapons, and simple internet attacks that can destroy our energy and water infrastructure, we are fools if we think we are untouchable, regardless of the size of our "wall"
Our arrogance, our "exceptionalism" will insure America suffers most.
5
The "Financial Sector" gave us the Great Recession, the S&L Bail Out, etc. Need I go on? Why should we trust them again? The Chicago School of economics gave us this neoconservative trap that we're in now. Trading pollution futures is still pollution. Leaving it up to the magic of "markets" is only a sleight of hand to launder and obscure responsibility.
"Finance uses something called the discount rate to compare future value with present value. " Seriously? We're not talking about depreciation on your car! This article is only insulting.
It is clear to me that governments must act forcefully now to reduce the severity of the consequences in the future. I think a carbon tax is not politically the way to go, because it is viewed as an unfair tax on the average person. Why should I have to pay the same tax rate to drive my car as a rich person? The rich person's carbon footprint is much larger than mine, so I should expect that the rich should pay the lion's share of the bill. Government leaders need to introduce a tax premium on upper incomes to fund the efforts to manage global warming. Macron knows that taxing the lower and middle classes doesn't work. It won't sell in the US either.
@Kevin Cummins - rather than just assume what you do, please look at carbon tax plans that are revenue neutral and that return tax money collected to all consumers. The intention is that the money returned helps with any increase in fossil fuel costs, but also rewards people who realize they can make money by reducing fuel use.
Here's one plan.
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/
That's the top off the list of organizations here:
https://www.carbontax.org/contact-us/other-advocates/
3
@Kevin Cummins building public transportation is the way to eliminate much of the current pollution. So if the carbon tax means that regular people have to worry about how much gas they use, that could be a good thing.
2
We need economist to figure some things out, but I'm not sure how they classify everything when figuring costs, benefits, and things that might seem good, if they count as contributions to GDP.
1 - During a record drought, millions of Syrian farmers "adapted" with their feet, moving families into the cities, straining services to the breaking point and leading to war, and also destabilizing European nations (and stressing the Syrian neighbors who hold most refugees still). How do we factor in such "adapting" as conditions like that are expected to increase?
2 - Houston's three consecutive years with 500-year floods kept people from work, destroyed a lot of homes, spilled toxic materials, etc. But it also created a boom in construction. Do we cheer each time an area is devastated, or are business gains, when funded with disaster relief tax funds, counted as wasteful spending?
3 - The fossil industry funds lots of people who yell about how expensive changing our energy system is, but change has been happening for years, and in expanding areas of the country, building new renewables is cheaper than running existing coal plants. Storage is starting to replace gas peaker plants, too, saving more money.
So the "cost" of changing means their investors will be stuck with stranded assets, but it also means that in general, employers will have less lost productivity due to respiratory illness (or heat risk), and our military might get to ignore the Middle East (finally).
2
As someone trained as an economist, I can understand the line of discussion that Mr. Irwin traipses over.
But, that is an entirely different thing from considering whether this hermetic way of thinking harbors anything remotely resembling the sheer scale of impacts that climate disruption will inflict.
In the real world, which that is distinct from economic's marginal cost curves and multiple regressions, our modern civilization rests precariously on millions of interconnected networks that, at each point, depend upon trust and comity --- all of which will be ripped asunder when the environment on which everything is erected unravels.
Traditional economists' abstract soliloquies have nothing to offer in the storm that is gathering to unravel the foundation of civilization.
9
@Peter anderson Peter, I think you're right and the discussions among economists remind me of Strangelovian conversations about the prospects of surviving a nuclear winter.
There is another factor that few are aware of. Emergent game-changing technology is currently under development. See: http://ufsolution.wixsite.com/unifiedfieldsolution/proven-tech . It need support and the awareness of people to emerge to save this planet.
A key metric we all use, and abuse, is GDP. But it's the wrong metric for what ails us right now--which, as the author points out, is the problem of climate change. We could see a continued massive oil and gas boom together with unprecedented Hurricane Harvey-like flooding, sea level rise, superstorms that destroy entire towns--and our GDP would register that as growth. Thankfully, there are ways of internalizing the cost of climate change and other "bads" and while internalizing the benefits of clean air and greater income equality )genuine goods)--but they just aren't in common circulation. The Genuine Progress Indicator, which my institute helped develop, could help guide our country out of this hellish path we're on, down a wiser path and help us better discern the economic growth that would be good--or at least better-- for all. More here: https://sustainable-economy.org/new-measures-progress/
2
The human race may adapt well enough, but most of the plants and animals that share this planet with us, will not.
4
Nowadays, people directly faces tremendous disasters all around the world and are gradually noticing , that the climate changes was real. I was born and grow up in Japan. I have faced that Japan been stuck by causing earthquake and Tsunami, and eruption of the volcanoes. That is why, the climate change is common sense as for me.
Why does some people cannot realize the Climate change and it is only a fake and like a conspiracy? That people has no experience to go through the disasters ,or something....
1
GDP is one thing.
What about yield per acre/hectare?
What about % change of arable land?
1
It would be prudent to consider the likely possibility that at some point the cumulative costs simply bankrupt everyone, or, the same thing, render the monetary system unworkable. Money, after all, exists only in human minds. Climate change exists in the real world, and that reality is still beyond any of the scenarios given here. We are actually turning the planet loose on a course it has never been on before. Any thought of adapting is preposterously arrogant. But really, for humans what else is new?
1
Economics can be a useful tool to bring the process of deciding how to address the problem; and, for some, providing the reasons for doing so. But it has its limitations, some of which are shown in Irwin's mention of assumptions. However, the field has its blindspots, too. There is no mention of our stewardship responsibilities towards other species; and, if you don't buy that we have one, our dependence on them. "Rapid change" can actually mean super-rapid change if we meet a social or ecological tipping point that creates a positive feedback loop (which tend to actually cause negative impacts) like methane releases from too much melting of peat, causing more climate change. And the fundamental point of discount rates is treated as just objective, common sense, with nothing really to talk about except argue about the proper rate. When actually it hides a huge value judgment about responsibilities to future generations. Economist don't usually ask for your input on this; nor do they tell suggest: "Perhaps we shouldn't even discount the future?" I certainly don't when it comes to my grandchildren. Why should I do it for others' grandchildren?
But with caveats such as these, it can be a useful field to add to the multidisciplinary mix. It is nice to see more of them gradually get into the climate change area, add their perspective, and I think become better at it and more sensitive to factors such as equity. It would help to show more modesty and learn something about ecology.
1
Although I agree that climate change is a real issue that needs to be addressed, it seems that the laws of physics should be complied with in our analysis. In this article, it states that burning 113 gallons of gasoline will release about 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide. 113 gallons of gasoline weighs approximately 678 pounds (6lbs/gallon). One metric ton of CO2 weighs approximately 2200 pounds. How is it possible that burning gasoline creates 3 times its own weight in CO2? We need to get our stated facts to align with the scientific facts if we are to be taken seriously.
@Bill Watson Carbon has an atomic weight of about 12; oxygen weighs in at 16. Adding two oxygen atoms to one carbon gives a weight of 44 for a CO2 molecule. Thus the factor of three or so from the article is reasonable.
5
@Bill Watson
The oxygen comes from the air to combine with the carbon of gasoline.
1
@Bill Watson The extra weight comes from the weight of the oxygen consumed in the fuel burning. A mole unit of CO2 weighs 44 grams, whereas a mole unit of carbon weighs 12 grams. Hence burning 12 grams of carbon, (I'm ignoring the hydrogen content in gasoline for simplicity sake) will produce 44 grams of carbon dioxide.
2
I have been interested in and following Climate Change for quite some time now and it seems that the path the earth is on is generally on the high end of the conservative predictions made by scientists studying the issue. That does not portend a happy or easy outcome for our society as we have not been doing the difficult and expensive work necessary to adapt to the world coming shortly.
A changing climate and the population movements driven by it will put profound stress on the built environment from the utility systems, to transportation infrastructure and the very homes we live in. Since so large a portion of our population live in coastal areas, much of our critical infrastructure is located in or very near vulnerable land. Adapting to that reality will take time and money and sadly I do not see one society on our planet doing the necessary work to prepare.
I am a Baby Boomer (age 57) and will likely not be here to see the worst of what climate change is already locked in, but anyone paying attention can see the impacts are already becoming apparent in the natural world around us. I see the time of my old age as a time where an unprepared humanity meets a rapidly changing earth and the potential for problems is quite high.
In the Biblical account, Noah built his ark before the flood came. In the real world we live in there are profound disruptions coming and we are in no way prepared which could end tragically for countless people.
4
@David Gregory
Profound disruptions have occurred in past, although political examples come to mind first. Consider the German evacuation of East Prussia in 1945 as that department was divided between Russia and Poland. Prussia in that era differs little in economy from 21st Century USA.
@Neil Irwin
Many discussions assume the 'rate of change' is modest and alter the current environment in a continuous manner whilst completely ignoring the 'destination'.
Not all of the destinations human induced climate change is capable of delivering are actually survivable for human civilisation in its current scale or form.
Indeed, climate change may deposit the Earth's climate in a state where so many elements of the ecosystem have been damaged and so many of the norms that have prevailed for millennia are violated that we are merely one species of many that die out.
Other species adapt by evolutionary processes rather than rapidly by application of intelligence and tool making skills.
The inter-dependence of species means that mass migration of plant and animal species is not guaranteed to result in large surviving populations. For a species to survive a suitable chain of dependencies must exist in its new location.
Massive methane emissions from Arctic regions may force temperature increases beyond 15 degrees celsius, ending human agriculture because the soil is arid and lifeless.
The basic logic is this.
Oil is going to run out within 100 years and needs to be replaced.
Why risk destroying everything else we value and depend upon by triggering calamitous climate changes when we have risk free energy alternatives ?
With a loaded gun pointed at our head, optimistic assumptions are not enough.
We need to act to remove the risk of impending disaster.
7
@Richard Mitchell-Lowe
We as a species live in a world of denial and have proven time and again incapable of putting the greater good above personal need and greed.
At this late hour we are still buying gas guzzling SUVs and Pickups that are mostly carrying one person around between oversized houses on our way to big box stores that sell water shipped to Maine from Fiji. The carbon footprint of humanity is heavy and shows no sign of slowing- globalism uses vast amounts of carbon energy shipping Chinese Oranges to Florida and Pakistani Cotton to Mississippi.
3
It seems to me that what has been forgotten (or ignored) in the article is that we (or our grandchildren) are not going to be faced with a small number of discrete events, each of which can be tackled by innovation or adaptation, but by a large number of world-wide events all occurring at about the same time. Furthermore, they are going to be interacting with one another. For example, if ocean levels rise relatively suddenly, we will have to move hundred of millions of people from existing cities and previously productive agricultural land. This will be extremely expensive and politically disruptive. So how will we be able to afford (economically and politically) to deal with (e.g.) desertification of the United States and Canada and China and Russia and Africa at the same time? And so on to the next problem. We are facing simultaneous multiple catastrophes, not just the odd disaster.
24
"There is a big difference between costs that are high but manageable versus those that might come with catastrophic events like food shortages and mass refugee crises." Future food shortages and mass refugee crises are a given, along with other challenges.
"Likewise, the cost of carbon emissions varies greatly depending on how you value the well-being of people in future decades — many not born yet, and who may benefit from technologies and wealth we cannot imagine — versus our well-being today."
Unfortunately, we're obviously not valueing "the well-being of people in future decades"...and they will despise us for it. But they may "benefit from technologies and wealth we cannot imagine"! I sure hope so. But more likely their lives will be short, brutish, polluted and very bleak.
I wish all economists would acknowledge that there is no post-environment economy.
10
Economists, inveterate practitioners of reducing human complexities to mutually nullifying numerological constructs (Harry Truman wished for a one-handed economist because they too often replied to questions by saying, "On the one hand ....") that offer zero insight into the vast complexities of ecological interactions crucial to myriad subtle characteristics of the human organism's physical and mental health,should be caged and prevented from pontificating until a representative of an animal species facing extinction tugs on their chain.
3
Leave it to an economist to reduce all decisions regarding whether to respond to climate change to MONEY! What about:
* The quality of life on this planet, not just for humans but all plants and animals?
* The quality of life of our children's life span?
* The seventh generation behind us that native people value but Americans clearly do not?
* Our future chance to evolve from the childish, selfish behavior we exhibit today towards a more compassionate concern for all life in the future?
9
We have already demonstrated that like every other species we are inordinately fixated on the present time. In the end, we will simply react to the man-made catastrophes we have wrought. Reason will give way to fear then panic. I suppose we might survive it but our civilization won’t
5
"Despite all these risks, it’s important to remember that humanity tends to be remarkably adaptable. A century ago, most people lived without an automobile, a refrigerator, or the possibility of traveling by airplane. A couple of decades before that, almost no one had indoor plumbing."
How in hell is adopting technologies based on ruthless exploitation of our planet's once abundant resources in order to enjoy a life of softness and leisure in any way an example of "adaptation".
"But some of that spending also created long-term benefits for society, like the innovations that led to the internet and to reliable commercial jet aircraft travel."
I would posit that the jury of history has yet to rule on the ultimate effect on humanity of these "advances" and others; like internal combustion and its crowning achievement, the automobile etc etc etc.
Read McKenzie Funk, "Windfall: The Booming Business of Global Warming".
2
As opposed to the trillion dollar fossil fuel industry ?
3
The future is based in the present. When you get to the "future" it is the present. We only really have the present and what we do in it depends whether we have more "presents" down the road.
3
I applaud and am in awe of the legions of climate-related scientists who soldier on with their life’s work.
Your efforts are appreciated!
The lack of understanding of and action in-response to your collective efforts does not take anything away from the tremendous accomplishments made.
Humanity has chosen willful ignorance over your science and will learn the price of denial the hard way.
You can all say you did your best.
Hopefully, there’s still a meaningful path forward if & when we finally learn from your conclusions.
Many thanks!
9
@Kevin Greene
It can't be easy for scientists studying climate. I read of one oceanographer who was suffering from depression because she knew what she would see each time she went out on the reefs.
More dead corals.
7
@Erik Frederiksen
Ecologists have the same problem. There's nothing like having a study site you've come to love being bulldozed.
1
I'm actually surprised that there was as much thinking about future costs! Certainly this should be a top issue in the news to let folks know this will affect each and every one of us.
We have done a Horrible job in cost benefit analysis in just about everything. And we never seem to look at anything more than an immediate time frame. Examples: were the costs of plastic pollution (from reduced tourism where this stuff is floating in Asian rivers, to health care issues from endrotrin disrupters in plastic that we are ALL now eating!). And why don't we have a requirement that everything created needs to be biodegradable or else recycled here in this county (new business and more jobs!).
I have yet to meet a cost benefit analysis that covers it all as best they can.
4
These decisions are based on rational economics. You can get out your calculator (it's on your smart phone), plug in a realistic interest rate and quickly see how little a dollar will be worth in, say, 30 years. Just by the way we define money we dispose of our future.
2
“A single chlorofluorocarbon factory can produce gases with a climate forcing that exceeds the forcing due to Earth orbital perturbations.” James Hansen, 2011 http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeople.pdf
These “orbital perturbations” caused huge changes in climate due to amplifying feedbacks like ice melt and release of CO2 from warming oceans and methane from permafrost.
From PNAS in 2014: “Using satellite measurements, this analysis directly quantifies how much the Arctic as viewed from space has darkened in response to the recent sea ice retreat. We find that this decline has caused 6.4 ± 0.9 W/m2 of radiative heating since 1979, considerably larger than expectations from models and recent less direct estimates. Averaged globally, this albedo change is equivalent to 25% of the direct forcing from CO2 during the past 30 y.” https://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3322
As the other half of the surface area of Arctic sea ice largely goes away by mid-century, that amplifying feedback will increase substantially. And the loss of seasonal snow cover in the North adds a similar amplifying feedback.
I’m not sure the brakes available to us now are sufficient to stop this ball from rolling where we don’t want it to.
5
@Erik Frederiksen
Dear Erik,
The possibility still exists to shield the earth by a percent or so of sunlight with artificial aerosol as was proposed in 1997 by eminent physicist Edward Teller.
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/29/043/29043613.pdf?r=1&r=1
In recent times this has been discussed by David Keith of Harvard Univ. who wrote a book "A case for Solar Geoengineering' and has many excellent journal pubs see Google Scholar. I have also written a book "Can Physics Save Miami, Shanghai and Venice by lowering the sea", that will be published by Morgan Claypool as part of their IOP Concise Physics series sometime in 2019. This book details the physics argument that the cooling that can achieved with the aerosol will also arrest the present and predicted sea level rise.
Ed Wolf, Prof. of Physics
Tandon School of Engineering, New York University
(Intended Audience: The wives and daughters of the carbon barons & the carbon-sponsored politicians)
I truly fear for the future safety of the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the owners, board members and executives of the oil, natural gas, coal and pipeline companies and their sponsored political “leaders.”
As living conditions on our planet become unbearable due to the severe, relentless impacts of Climate Change, generations of devastated citizens around the world will ask: “Who is most directly responsible for this existential catastrophe?”
When these citizens look around, they will find many of the culpable carbon barons and carbon-sponsored politicians have already passed on to whatever afterlife awaits them. But the direct descendants of the carbon barons and the carbon-sponsored politicians will still be here. And there will be no escape – not even behind their gated communities – from the wrath of billions of incensed citizens on every continent.
For the carbon barons, it all comes down to one essential choice to be made right now: harvest their carbon assets and sacrifice their descendants – or – strand their carbon assets and save their descendants?
For the carbon-sponsored politicians, it also comes down to one essential choice to be made right now: continue to dither on Climate Change legislation and sacrifice their descendants – or – pass sweeping and meaningful Climate Change mitigation legislation and save their descendants?
19
@Phillip Stephen Pino
"planners at the Pentagon have been quietly preparing to take charge of a planet shaken by climate chaos. Predicting ever more extreme weather, famine, and social collapse around the globe, high-level experts like former CIA director James Woolsey and former U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gordon Sullivan outline a chilling vision of endemic violence and “militarized adaptation” to disaster. As hunger and disease turn to conflict in the Global South, planners inside and outside the Pentagon are preparing to shut borders, control population movements, and intensify U.S. intervention abroad."
https://www.utne.com/politics/natural-disaster-zm0z13sozros
Rich people have been buying places to flee to in places like New Zealand, far from the coming crises.
6
@Erik Frederiksen The Earth is all connected. No one will be spared any place. If you don't understand what happens when the permafrost melts, then you don't understand what is coming. Everything dies. Plants, animals people. We can't live with that much co2 released into the air.
2
@Erik Frederiksen
New Zealand has terrific earthquakes.
1
Political instruments fueling inequality by purpose or the other way round:
Have a look at population density defined by parameters as land property,ratio cash /market crops ,and ...precious raw materials [ trade] wars fought for,income per capita,welfare and wellbeing propensities ,demographic policy .
Let me say one of the most fueling factors :the so-called investors/investment “climate” .
[ e.g. water and air pollution]
Human beings live in all kinds of climates (except polar ice cap).
@Ed - and none of us breathe water. It would be much more convenient if sea level could flood underused portions of the interior, but darn if it's not going to flood where we built all those ports and cities.
As for living in all climates, there's an extreme that isn't beyond the realm of possibility, in that some areas, like the Persian Gulf, where some heat waves will produce wet-bulb temperatures that kill large mammals within hours. That's death from inability to dissipate internal heat, and can happen even if motionless, in the shade.
So lack of air conditioning could become lethal. And A/C would have to be provided for whatever cattle and wild mammals were around. It's not a coincidence that during past episodes when the climate was much hotter than now, there were no large warm-blooded animals.
That's the far extreme, but even survivable conditions will have tremendous impact.
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/12/22/humidity-may-prove-breaking-point-for-some-areas-as-temperatures-rise-says-study/
The Carolinas were plagued with heat, mosquitoes and long-term flooding this year. Picture how hard rescue and post-storm recovery and rebuilding will be when spending more than an hour or two of exertion outdoors will lead to heat stroke?
We do not want to push such boundaries, and things like that scenario is part of why the South will be harmed more than any other region in the US.
12
Hmmm....
What would be the cost of 2 billion refugees?
10
@William
Just 2 billion?
That's a significant underestimation.
2
Useful article. But climate change is about so much more than money, or costs to humanity.
When I win the lottery, I'm buying copies of The Moth Snowstorm for the entire staff of the NYT.
1
It is time for a new value system when we discuss the environment. Yes, the dollar is the base of our economy. But more dollars do not necessarily equate to more value.
Example: If I found out I was dying tomorrow of cancer, I would strongly consider the cost of treatment to my family's economic well-being. But I would also consider the mental trauma of having their husband and father simply give up. I would fight, with limited regard to economic cost, because the mental health of my wife and daughters is substantially more valuable.
So to, with the environment and climate change. We constantly look at the harm to the economy, partly because it is easy to calculate and partly - and bluntly - because you need to in order to convince businesses and conservatives of the risks. But the environment means more than dollars and cents. We need to find a way to quantify the value of a clean, stable, self-sustaining home planet, in a way that doesn't suggest it is inexorably tied to a fiat currency.
7
I am a little baffled that nobody wants to state the obvious: As a society we have no mechanism to move people inland, Even by just 2 miles. When high cost / high value coastal real estate gets flooded out repeated, insurance companies sooner or later will retreat and not offer home owners or flood insurance any longer. This problem is well beyond local governments' reach or capabilities, nor will our federal government have unlimited money to essentially rebuild what is a lost cause. Miami, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, San Diego, Houston... etc. Once insurance coverage goes, so goes real estate value... so essentially we are playing chicken, playing to see who gets stuck with the bill. If I buy a $500K condo in Miami, I hope to be able to sell it in several years for $600K... sooner or later, with rising waters, it'll end up being worth $150K. Some infrastructure projects will not be viable any longer. Unfortunately everybody seems out of touch with this scenario.
24
@Brian Will
$150k? You're being optimistic. Unless it has wheels or floats, eventually the value of that condo is going to be $zero.
12
@Brian Will we don't even have the ability to talk about it or look at studies about it at the government level. Things we should be thinking about now: climate change, migration, and likelihood of major segments of our population being replaced by robots, etc.
1
@Brian Will - here's one article that talks very specifically how to do some of it - buyouts in NJ for land that will no longer be developed after the homes are removed.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/surrendering-to-rising-seas/
Buyouts are happening inland, as well. People need to be aware that climate change will flood along rivers, too, so a lot of infrastructure at risk there. Here is detail about criteria in Illinois for removing structures that flood repeatedly.
https://www.dnr.illinois.gov/waterresources/pages/mitigation.aspx
Around the country, economics will start reversing some of the "build anything, build anywhere" approach local developers and municipalities have always embraced - as Federal disaster relief funds get stretched more and more. Three consecutive years of 500-year floods in Houston. Expanding wildfires collide with people wanting to build in canyons and forests out west.
4
Instead of a "power grid" situation, we ought to commit ourselves to other means of locally-sourced power.
This should have been done for Puerto Rico, instead of having the lengthy fight to rebuild an infrastructure for distribution that will be just as vulnerable to the NEXT hurricane.
Every time there's a serious weather event, there's a concomitant power outage. It doesn't have to be that way.
5
@Palladia - probably better to have a more resilient grid that incorporates microgrids that can continue supplying very local power when the wider-scale grid suffers calamity. That way, energy can be distributed from the best sources throughout the day and the year.
Germany put a lot of their power lines underground. It's more expensive to do, and repairs can be costly IF something happens to the buried cable, but it sure would be useful in places like Puerto Rico in a hurricane, or California in wind-driven wildfires. PSE&G is at bankruptcy right now because of surface power lines.
4
So, in the past, anatomically-modern humans "adapted" to large-scale glaciations that saw sea levels drop, exposing large areas of coastal shelves, while making large areas of land unusable. Some groups picked up every single thing they owned and carried it across the Bering land bridge to America, or walked to England, and adapted to all the new game to hunt and plants and other foods to gather.
Then much of the ice melted, raising sea levels (more then 120 meters so far), and as sea levels got within about 30-40 meters of present, anatomically-modern humans began turning into history-recording, agricultural humans, with permanent settlements, and with divisions of labor, and economists.
All that adaptability will be just great as sea levels have begun rising again, with the total number of meters expected over the next few hundred years very dependent on what we do in the next several decades.
So, for those who don't want to reduce emissions, just "adapt", we designate you to be the ones who will lift up all of our possessions, as coasts turn into continental shelves. It should be easy, right? Humans did it in the past. And we're smarter now, right, so I expect you'll figure out how to lift a sewer system without breaking it.
Switching off of fossil quickly benefits people alive today, while also greatly reducing the amount of costly adapting we're forcing onto future humans.
11
@b fagan
There were significantly fewer humans during and after the last ice age.
Australia currently has a population of 25 million.
In 1788 at the time of British invasion, there were no more than 500K to 1 million people here.
The estimate is, with rain permanently moved off the land and over the southern ocean, we can support 6-12 million. And that's the optimistic version.
Do the math: a planet with almost 8 billion people, resources that can support 2 billion in comfort assuming the ecosystem doesn't totally collapse = a species cull of up to 75%.
2
An alternative view is climate change will create economic enhancement in developed countries due to expenditure, PROFIT, and new employment opportunities and salaries from infrastructure and technology projects. Surprisingly, this NYT article alludes to that, at least sort of does. The projections of economic deterioration are largely based on no adaptation to climate change, which makes those projections baseless.
Good analysis but a carbon tax will have minimal impact on emissions, cost a lot to administer, and redistribute wealth in ways that might not be favorable. For example the poor will have to pay, the rich can use say solar powered electric cars to avoid some of the tax. Adapt in the US, let the rest of the world either reduce their emissions (china, india, EU) or not increase them. We can and should improve our country and adapt. And a new grid would be trillions of dollars and some resources we don't actually have, same with all electric fleet of cars and trucks.
@vulcanalex - you act like it doesn't cost trillions of dollars to
Keep drilling more and more fracking holes (including a mile or more of 7-inch steel pipe, and enough cement to wrap around it).
Oh, and build hundreds of miles of transport pipelines.
And acquire and use millions of gallons of water for fracking (after mixing in millions of tons of sand and secret chemical blends).
And treat and dispose of that water and the toxic brines from the wells.
And refine and distribute the products
And clean up all the spills
And dig, clean, ship and burn coal
And dispose of millions of tons of toxic ash
And dispose of it again, properly this time, after cleanup up the spills into drinking supplies
And pay for healthcare for people sickened by the pollution.
And put expensive metals into catalytic converters to keep the pollution from being even worse
And spend $20 million in tax money in Indiana cleaning up after the Pence family's bankrupt gas stations (couldn't leave that out)
I haven't even got to the huge costs of Just Adapting, because I want to remind you that the current energy system is far from low-cost. Cleaner energy is possible now, reduces rather than raises overall costs, and also reduces the bill for adaptation.
Your approach is like "well, once the upstairs bedroom caught fire, I just kept adapting to other rooms until the house burned down. But living in the yard is fine, and putting the fire out in the bedroom would have cost money."
6
@vulcanalex
"a carbon tax will have minimal impact on emissions, cost a lot to administer, and redistribute wealth in ways that might not be favorable. "
That depends on how the tax is implemented. The article cites expert endorsement of "a gradually rising carbon tax whose proceeds would be distributed to consumers as 'carbon dividends'."
A US Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustment Tariff (citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend) would raise fossil fuel prices just enough to get consumers' attention and make current carbon-neutral alternatives more competitive. 100% of the revenue collected from fuel producers and importers of goods would return to US consumers monthly, as a per capita dividend.
CF&D/BAT would impose no additional tax burden on the US economy. Existing tax administration apparatus would require little expansion. As we'd all get the same dividend, and as energy consumption is correlated with income, there would be some net wealth transfer down the income scale. We'd each make our budget choices as we always have, but with a more accurate price signal of fossil carbon's climate-change costs. Aided by our dividends, we'd begin switching to available alternatives. In turn, the lure of profit would ramp up alternative supplies and spur innovation in production, storage and distribution, driving the build-out of the carbon-neutral economy well before the next century.
That's the theory, at least! Now it's up to our politicians 8^(.
2
The US alone has 1,400 cities and towns threatened by sea level rise. The cost to move the first village in the US due to global warming impacts will cost an estimated $180 million for around 600 people.
Eric Rignot published a paper on Monday in PNAS showing rapid acceleration in ice mass loss from both West and East Antarctica.
Rignot told CNN, "I did not expect the cumulative contribution of East Antarctica melt to be so large," and said the finding is significant because "melting is taking place in the most vulnerable parts of Antarctica...parts that hold the potential for multiple meters of sea level rise in the coming century or two."
15
@Erik Frederiksen 600 people cost 180 million??? Seems excessive. Say 300 homes at 100K and some moving costs. More like say 5 million.
@vulcanalex not just homes but infrastructure as well.
3
@vulcanalex
Oops, you forgot all the infrastructure other than dwellings. Care to guess again?
5
It makes no sense that the author notes what humans did without 100 years ago to survive. In 1900, roughly one billion humans, today near 8 billion. Before this phase of the climate change reaches its zenith there will be a mass die off of humans and animal species. Yes, life will survive, and the wealthiest are already hedging their bets.
Regarding the science of climate change, the author's underlying assumptions about cost will probably be more significant than imagined. Already the change models of 10 years ago don't reflect the acceleration of climate change we are enjoying
5
The biggest factor causing climate change, is over population. It shows up though its derivative effects like more of Industrial farming, agricultural chemical use, and meat eating as the most inefficient use of energy.
32
@B Around a billion people don't use fossil fuels.
In the US we produce around 16 tons of CO2 per capita annually.
In Bangladesh they produce less than half a ton, yet around a third of that country is going under water over the next 1-300 years due to the lifestyle of the more well off.
It is not population, but the burning of fossil fuels which cause the problem.
13
@Erik Frederiksen
And if our high consumption population here in the states was drastically smaller, and were not being constantly pumped up by our preposterous immigration policy (without which we would be approaching zero population growth in the the states), we would be burning far less fossil fuels.
Even less than half a ton per person is far too much under our present circumstances. And half a ton times 100,000 people is far less than half a ton times 1 billion.
I am sorry but your argument completely fails any logic test.
The failure of every president since Nixon to consider the adverse impact of population growth and ever Republican president since Nixon to try to explode it as much as possible by fighting abortion and contraception at home and globally has absolutely compounded a problem that would have been horrendous without their malfeasance.
2
@Erik Frederiksen
No. Its population. You could ask Manhattanites to live like an Bangladeshis, as if that would happen. Better yet, turn back the clock and let everyone live like its 1900. Life expectancy was just 45. Problem solved.
1
The way - status quo economic structure - that is assumed in most discounting, opportunity costs, and related methods of analysis used by economists is all very interesting and useful. BUT.
About a century ago, Lewis Mumford wrote about "Carboniferous Capitalism," a study of how the Industrial Revolution was based largely on the use of carbon based energy sources. The modern economy is also dependent on carbon for energy, whether we think of production of goods and services, or garden variety activities such as commuting to work or play.
If the doomsdayers are correct about the longer-term effects of GhG emissions, and I think they are, then the issue is really about life expectancy. Whether terrible outcomes occur in 50, 75, or 100 years from today is moot. They, as with death, will occur. Interesting technical concerns about the appropriate discount rate (because of uncertainty, it might be zero) and the time horizon notwithstanding, the real issue is how to alter the economic structure from carbon dependency to other energy sources.
Here is where the catchy concept of a Green New Deal is useful. One needs to understand that such as radical transformation - a new Industrial Revolution - will not come about by fiddling with discount rates or Carbon Taxes alone. A major restructuring of the basis for economic activity will require an effort akin to the public-private partnership formed in the US to fight WWII. It can be done, and it should be done.
18
@San Ta Not moot at all, if hundred years I will be long gone, and tech can make a massive difference. So you support say 500 new nuclear power plants in the us??
1
@vulcanalex
And where are you going to put all the nuclear waste from those 500 nuclear plants? We already have trouble getting rid of what we already generate with far fewer nuclear plants.
No one wants nuclear waste to be buried in their backyard.
I don't see anywhere in this article any mention of the IPCC's recommendation that we reduce CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 (requirement is even higher in the US, the 2nd biggest emitter!). This is why the carbon tax + dividend plan won't work and amounts to unbelievable incrementalism favored by the very system that gave us the mess we're in. Carbon tax + dividend is not a serious strategy to achieve the requirement. We need to stop thinking of the 45% by 2030 as a "goal" or a "nice to have", and more as a CONSTRAINT(!!!) we *MUST* fit within. If we were to do that, then we would see that something more like the Green New Deal plan and its massive PUBLIC investment (not merely private capital) in renewables + smart grid + transitioning fossil fuel workers to the green economy is the ONLY plan that works--economically, politically, and ecologically.
34
@Richard Schultz You mean a plan that only is possible in a fantasy alternative reality. There is not enough capacity to make those changes in our country in that time frame, no less in other countries. Reality bites!!!
1
@vulcanalex What you're advocating for is fatalism. You're just throwing up your hands and saying "it can't be done", without even trying and without evidence.
6
@vulcanalex
Ah, yes. The "politics of the possible:" claiming it'll never work as an excuse not to have to try to make it work.
3
Using money to assign value is a failure from the first step. All thinking people need to acquire news sets of values that are beyond the scope of dollars for us to survive in the future. We need to value nature (water, air, land, other living creatures of all types, etc.) as beyond price, and things will fall into place from there. Otherwise, like I said, we will fail to avoid catastrophes at every level. We are failing even now. And though humans may not become extinct, life in that future world of cruelty and misery may not be worth living.
8
At $42 per ton (call it $40) and 1 ton per 113 gallons (call it 100) a car that gets 20 mpg pays $1 per 50 miles driven. No one will change their behavior in any way for that amount.
Even somewhat higher carbon taxes would simply be ignored by a lot of people, and that defeats their purpose. But this calculation is nonsensical, in part because of the all-important discount rate.
A 3% discount rate is laughably high - the stuff of an Onion headline. A traditional society would use a zero percent rate. That we would be more reckless might be based on faith in technology and economic growth to overcome expected harms, but anything above a small fraction of a percent represents unimaginable greed and selfishness.
Even 2% per year for 20-25 years (a guess at a typical gap between generations) means one's children's lifetime well-being is less than half as valuable as one's own, grandchildren are relegated to the back-burner and great-grandchildren are no more than an afterthought. Very few people think this way about their families in any other context.
One might argue that a growing economy (which averages maybe 2% per year) offsets these harms, but I disagree. One cannot easily buy more years of life or better air quality or reincarnate lost species.
While in theory a carbon tax could possibly "work" if it is not voted out (and didn't ruin competition or crush the poor), the parameters of the debate seem to have already ensured it will have no significant positive effect.
2
William Nordhaus is right. G.D.P. as a metric is an awful indicator for the effects on climate change.
It has long been known that the destruction of the 2nd world war was the economic driver for the twenty years thereafter. Yet surely nobody would claim that the 2nd world war was a good investments, in particular the millions of people that perished.
Indeed climate change will be a driver for investments and drive a large portion of economic activity. As the article states, the poor will carry the burden in decline of quality of life. Bit it will be a threat to everybody. In the end the millions and millions of people that have to flee their lands have to go somewhere. And "go" they do. And we are not exactly receiving them with open arms. As our dear leader Trump already declares citing the calamities of the caravans.
2
@Jzu Considering how over populated the earth is perhaps WWII was a great investment.
I'm sorry, why would we trust a profession who couldn't see the biggest financial crash and recession of our lifetimes coming down the pike with gauging the future cost of climate change?
It's honestly shocking to me that economists think they have any claim in shaping the conversation. These discount rates don't take into account the science in the least bit: that there are positive feedback loops that could kick in to make the situation far worse (or they already have and we just don't know it), that the oceans are warming far faster than we thought, that entire ecosystems ARE CURRENTLY COLLAPSING. What's the discount rate on that, huh?
These economist who by and large have supported a system that got us into this horrific situation in the first place.
How dare they?
21
@L
Some economists did foresee the 2008 crash.
The discount rate is simply an approach to assigning estimates to what is now a completely vague and theoretical set of ideas because many people have difficulty in grasping impacts in absence of figures.
Obviously as the bad news continues to stream in and things are falling apart far faster than hypothesized only a few years ago, the discount rate needs constant adjustment.
There are ways of seriously thinking about some of the
bigger issues, like those summarized in the article. Then,
by contrast, there are ways of fantasizing about them that
are error filled and lead to very poor policy. This is
at the heart of the fundamentally (and tragically)
flawed perspective embodied by the current administration's leading managers (wheeler, perry, et al).
The security gained by ignorance surrounded by a wall
of indifference and self assuredness is not going to
do any of us any good at all. Yet, it is an attitude
at the heart of wheeler's mindset. It's been months
since the climate assessment report was published, yet
he has still found neither the time nor the motivation to study it. He has not even bothered to ask the NOAA director
to brief him on it. Instead he's promoted and pushed through
a serious weakening of the mpg limits in the clean air act from the prior administration, and has threatened to sue California's opposition to this.
How is that mindset possible? And how do you model the effects of such an execrable short sided mindset in coming to grips with what is likely to occur by 2050?
One other point. Why is it that the Times did not feature
on its front page the joint letter written by so many leading
economists about how to implement a smart carbon tax?
Why did I have to learn about it by reading this article?
46
@bl Perhaps the letter was not on the front page because the letter proposed that all the revenue from the carbon tax be returned to the consumers.
2
@Steve Which is impossible, administering it will cost something, and the return will never be seen as 'fair" either.
1
Very few people in the western world really care about climate change. It’s all just hypocritical noise.
The mantra should be “buy local, live local and stay local”. Until people stop racing to the airport in their electric vehicle, in order to jump onto huge jetliners to go stomp around at one’s favorite foreign warm locale or catching that relaxing monster cruise ship, nothing will change. Just imagine how much waste and pollution just one cruise ship produces, just to have yet another personal “travel adventure”. Large stadium events - are they really necessary or just another one of life’s well-marketed but unnecessary wasteful distractions.
Consultants flying around promoting solar and wind energy - already old technology. Too much excitement about electric vehicles that use haz mat Lithium batteries. One hopes that
Don Sadoway’s liquid metal battery gets scale and provides one of the necessary paradigm shift - safe, simple and basic materials.
To all the young 12 year olds - “Hey sorry about that, but it is up to you and your generation to sort out the mess we’ve left for you. But hey, do you remember all those fancy and fun travel adventures we took when you were younger?”
Buy Local, Live Local, and Stay Local.
45
@Scooter - wind and solar will be "old technology" when their price/performance ratio stops improving so dramatically - and dual-layer PV isn't even out there yet, but it's in the labs.
For the same reason, don't get carried away over any particular type of battery - like the liquid-metal one you mention. "Sadoway cautions that such batteries would not be suitable for some major uses, such as cars or phones." Because who wants to hold a hot container of liquid metal to their ear, or drive in traffic with one?
Grid storage is developing, and while lithium's the default leader now, that's not fixed in stone.
So yeah, we just need to keep rolling out more "old" technology while continuing to improve all of them.
7
@b fagan - I appreciate your technical viewpoint. But I was referring to major paradigm shifts, such as perhaps house paints and roofing materials with PV built into the structure itself, that provides solar collection - why add panel structure to houses. Perhaps highway systems ( the concrete is already a massive heat sink that keeps the atmosphere warmed up ) that render various sources of energy from the ingrained PV tech or other heat collection concept or from the energy of passing vehicles. I agree that "old tech" is making progress, but it is too slow. The year 2050 is likely to be an overly generous forecast, so perhaps assume around year 2030 is more realistic to improve climate change trendlines. Big paradigm shifts with "new tech" are necessary. thx
7
@Scooter Such roofing material already exists, but I bet it won't work in say areas with hurricanes.
2
This is an incredibly optimistic article. At this point it just beggars belief that people are still talking in terms of adaptability. The single biggest problem is all of these calculations for the future, temperatures, food supply, weather related catastrophes and sea level change are based on more or less the best case scenario. The best case is not going to happen people. Not by a long shot. This is because the models for predicting the rate of climate change are missing several important factors. Probably the most important of which is the release of green house gases from the oceans and arctic regions. The warmer it gets the faster these gases are released. We have no idea how much how fast but the estimated amount of methane hydrate is in the hundreds of billions of tons. As methane is on the order of 20 times more insulating than CO2, this is will make our attempts to limit warming to 1.5 degrees C. completely irrelevant. Add to this that most countries are not at all meeting their emissions commitments and I think it is safe to say that there is no reason what so ever for optimism such as expressed in this piece. Sorry, but I think it is time for people to get used to idea of how bad things will be in our near future.
60
@kevo Or they massively over state the effects on some areas of our planet. They are only models, ones that have been proven to be not that great.
@vulcanalex
You mean like the ice caps that are melting faster than predicted? Like the deaths of coral reefs, the acidity of the oceans, etc, etc.
5
@kevo
We are already seeing streams of refugees who are, in whole or in part, fleeing the impacts of climate change.
Certainly, our species and our planet are highly adaptable.
But our civilization is built on the ability to grow food, and transport it safely and efficiently. Once we lose arable land, a huge population migration or shrinkage is unavoidable. Also to mine and process material that may only be readily available in a few places. It is sobering to think how many skilled specialists and very scarce minerals are required for our civilization to function. The list of ... is the only place in the world where ... is found, or ... can be built is longer than is safe once world-wide commerce breaks down.
I am reminded of the savages in the Amazon with huts on non-flooding areas, living essentially as hunter-gatherers. The high places where they have huts were constructed by a high level, millennium-old, civilization of interconnected cities and towns as reported by the Spanish. The savages living there now are the descendants, impoverished and ignorant of those who build the ruins they live on--and their technology and culture.
Post climate change induced breakdown, this may be the fate of the luckiest of our descendants.
1
The problem, as we are finding out in California, is not how government collects a carbon tax, but what government spends it on...A $100 billion high-speed bullet train to nowhere, thank you Jerry Brown, would seem imprudent...Tell that to our fearless leaders out here.
2
I suppose there is no good reason to reject the recommendation by the very distinguished economists to use a large carbon tax to reduce climate change. The issue of whether we collectively want to reduce climate change is quite a different matter. Our President and his team and their supporters are committed to accelerating the rate of climate change and preserving as much of the old economy for as long as they can. Others see that as short sighted (or stupid and self-destructive) and as causing deliberate harm to many here in the United States as well as in the rest of the world. At the moment, we are drifting and maintaining enough greenhouse gas emissions to continue to do our part in driving additional climate change beyond that already baked in. There are very very few who appear willing to change that condition.
@Doug Karo There is a great reason to reject any analysis of economists, they are very poor at forecasting almost anything.
In the United States we live in the “richest” society that mankind has ever seen, where even poorer citizens have comforts and luxuries unavailable even to kings a few centuries ago. With basic necessities like food, shelter and clothing assured (for most) people turn to consumables that are showy and shiny, the next new thing, entertainments and circuses. None of these are necessary for a happy or contented life; indeed most of them are counterproductive. Although the destruction and suffering from continuing climate change will be horrific, I, for one, welcome a shrinking GDP and a return to the simplicity of a life not based on materialism.
7
That's really the best way to phrase it: how much of our present will we sacrifice to ensure a future? Things that benefit people in the long term can have severe consequences for those that do not benefit from the changing winds. This is the same coin we face when evaluating the benefits of automation against putting droves of people out of work, when acknowledging a smaller population for a country may overall improve things in the future but will sacrifice the first smaller generation killing themselves to support the larger elder generation, why those in support of a hard brexit are willing to sacrifice (other's) businesses that can't survive the fallout so that future generations with better options. What we are truly losing time on is our time to come up with a plan that cushions the changes for the most vulnerable. If we reach a point where a stark line in the sand is drawn whereby sudden extreme measures are taken across the board, we will be 'sacrificing' large segments of the population - generally those we have sacrificed in the past including the poor and people of color. Perhaps that is why so few in power care--they are still insulated and will not be the ones on the chopping block.
2
@Erin B
There may be those who will ensure that they ARE on the chopping block!
@Erin B
“We’ve divided the world into 25,000 regions and married that with very precise geographic predictions on how the local climate will change,”
They know exactly who goes under the bus.
For those living in a storm prone area like the southeastern US Atlantic or Gulf coast, a reasonable assumption at this point is that Federal funds that today pay 80% of disaster recovery costs will be unsustainable, putting greater burden on local government and communities. That is because Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria in a single year represented 3 of the 5 most expensive US storms in history and more are coming, as the thermal energy in the atmosphere and ocean climb.
So instead of a huge influx of Federal money for redevelopment stimulating local coastal economies, we may actually see retreat and shrinking of populations.
Places like Phoenix, now the 5th largest US city in population, could also shrink as temperatures of 120F become more common.
Agriculture will move north toward and into Canada, as prime growing areas today in the Southwest and southern Midwest drain acquifers and run out of water. The states of the Ogallala Acquifer might become wind farms, once the ancient water is depleted.
These are not small dislocations and the local costs are far higher than the national or global averages.
4
@Look Ahead Desalination of ocean and sub surface water powered by say nuclear, solar and wind can and should provide all the water we might need. How about towing those icebergs and storing that fresh water as well. All these assumptions assume we do nothing much to adapt.
Sorely missing in this article is a discussion of the socio-political effects of climate change, in particular its effect on traditional forms of democracy.
If governments are to effectively address global warming, radical measures of planification of the economy will be needed worldwide, including massive restrictions to the sacrosanct Growth, i.e. to the freedom of enterprise and consumption – a program on which it will be difficult to win an election.
On the other hand, the turmoil caused by global warming, in terms of migrations for example, will bring to power political movements not inclined to defend democratic values.
The alternative, then, will be either to renounce our current form of democracy in order to mitigate global warming, or to wait for the latter to wipe out democracy.
3
"Despite all these risks, it’s important to remember that humanity tends to be remarkably adaptable."
Really? We have known for decades that burning fossil fuels is detrimental to this, generally, benign planetary climate we depend on. But our "adaptation" has been inadequate to the crisis.
The only "remarkable" adaptation has been our willingness to do anything to preserve our God Given Right to cheap fuel; even to the point of fracking the crust of the earth we stand on to extract the last bits of fossil fuels from it and in the process risking who knows, or cares, because we got'a have it now.
5
Alas, the "economization" of life.
Where, precisely, in these calculations is the value of the inconceivable miracle known as our planet?
6
It’s Scary but this is just some of what we know. The part I’m worried about is what we we don’t.
That thing that suddenly makes things fatal, like a die off that causes multiple plague type events
4
The Trump administration discount rate of 7% makes a lot more sense then Obama's 3%. Investing in climate mitigation is risky as you don't know what the long term impact will be. Riskier investments require a higher expected rate of return. Therefore, 7% is the more realistic figure as it is in line with what one would expect if they invested in the stock market.
Personally I would use an even higher discount rate because unlike investments in the stock market which have a history investing in climate mitigation has no history to judge expected returns. This mean it is even riskier than the stock market and therefore should have a higher discount rate.
The higher the discount rate the lower the social costs of carbon.
@Peter B - spoken like someone in the tar-sands capital of the world. How's "risky" for a dirty energy source that is expensive to produce, is bottled up away from global markets, leaves a serious carbon footprint along with normal combustion pollution, and where profit/loss is based largely on the desires of Saudi Arabia and other nations with very low production costs and very large populations of young people used to cushy, subsidized lifestyles?
Utilities are replacing existing coal plants with renewables and storage. Electric cars are expected to be purchase-price compatible with internal combustion cars in less than a decade, and their total cost of ownership is far lower already. Heck, a columnist in the Wall Street Journal said he's holding off replacing his car for a couple years to buy electric - entirely on value consideration.
The coming wave of transportation won't need oil. So tell us about risky energy investments up there in tar sand land.
2
@b fagan New technology are reducing emission from oilsands production. These same technologies are also making oilsands more competitive with blood oil from the middle east by reducing the energy needed to extract oil from the sand.
https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=55909856FC490-07AA-AE03-B336920FC05A2CBE
@b fagan In 1954 when nuclear power was at the stage that electric vehicles are at today Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss said electric power would be "too cheap to meter." I am still eagerly waiting for the electric company to come and take away my meter.
For several reasons, the Trump Administration's decision to only include the cost of impacts in the US in its calculation of the Social Cost of Carbon makes no sense at all. First, the economy is now globally connected, and impacts elsewhere will have effects here (e.g., as a trivial example, as coffee plantations are impacted, the price of coffee and the caffeine Americans seem to need will go up); with the US depending so much on imported goods, impacts elsewhere will be reflected in the prices we pay. Second, Americans live all over the world and visit there and more, and will feel economic impacts elsewhere. Third, the CO2 emissions spread around the world, so the US is affected by emissions of others and US emissions impact others; if one does not consider interlinked effects, adding up national totals will not nearly reach the total of global effects. Fourth, impacts from one country's emissions build on the impacts of emissions of other nations (e.g., one nation's emissions might have only a little impact on sea level rise due to ice sheet loss, but collective emissions may well create an ice sheet instability that leads to much greater impacts than just adding up what each nation's emissions would do if those were the only emissions). Among many more reasons, I'd just add that we are a nation of immigrants who have connections back to relatives around the world, and that they experience impacts will affect us, economically, socially, and our international relations.
7
"…it’s important to remember that humanity tends to be remarkably adaptable…".
My, my, yes we are. Our beloved grandkiddos will have to remarkably adapt to global living conditions currently found in Delhi, Kampala, Peshawar…
But that's tomorrow. Meanwhile, let's fly to Mexico for a long weekend because, you know, cheap tickets.
58
@Miss Anne Thrope
Exactly. Hothouse Earth is coming MUCH sooner than expected. What was last years fire-storm in California about. You think that’s going to get "better"?
Even a total shutdown of human CO2 emissions right now would not affect the warming, which will accelerate as arctic and sub-arctic permafrosts melt and generate astounding volumes of the 30x more potent Methane gas. Already, millions of sub-arctic lakes are bubbling away, venting methane.
Hothouse earth, soon.
(Not to mention the 10,000 other ways we are destroying the planet)
8
Global warming caused by greenhouse gas accumulation is a continuous process, not some short term economic annoyance. What is at stake, if the process is not stopped, or perhaps reversed is the survival of the human species on this planet. Has that realization not sunk in? We are talking here about an ongoing process! How much heat can we take? How far along in that conitinuous heating process are we already? Fine for me, I am 88, but what about my grandchildren or any future great grandchildren. That is what all of us should be concerned about -- future generations after we are gone.
54
@Penseur
Even a total shutdown of human CO2 emissions right now would not affect the warming, which will accelerate as arctic and sub-arctic permafrosts melt and generate astounding volumes of the 30x more potent Methane gas.
Already, millions of sub-arctic lakes are bubbling away, venting megatons of methane.
Hothouse earth, soon.
(Not to mention the 10,000 other ways we are destroying the planet)
7
@Penseur How nice, you really think that some climate change is going to exterminate humans? It did not do that in the past and it won't do it ever. Now a large reduction in human population is likely, and needed. I don't have any grandchildren and might not have any.
3
@William I think it has been published in various nations' materials that the Siberian and Alaskan tundra has not merely melted but is BURNING.
1
"Climate Change" AKA "Global Warming"
Each of the following facts completely dispels the nonsense of global warming:
-Glaciers were Already Retreating Before 1900
-Ice ages have been coming and going for eons.
-The last 20 years have shown zero warming.
-Man produces less than 1/2 of 1 percent of C02 on the planet.
-It was warmer in the 15th century than it is now.
-The greatest warming in the 20th century was between 1935 and 1950.
-NASA confirms: Sea levels FALLING across the planet in 2016 and 2017.
-NASA Data: Earth Cooled by Half a Degree Celsius From '16-'18
-Scientists have been caught manipulating and hiding data.
-None, NONE, of their prior predictions have come true.
-In 1995 Al Gore said by 2005 Miami will be under water "due to Global warming". It's past 2005 and Miami is NOT underwater.
Mr. Orwell
Congratulations on the yuuugest collection of irony assembled this year anywhere on the planet.
11
@George Orwell
8 of your "facts" are wrong and the remaining 3 are irrelevant. You embody your handle perfectly.
6
@George Orwell
'Man produces less than 1/2 of 1 percent of C02 on the planet."
I always respond to this fallacy - small things cannot have large effects - by suggesting the writer have sex on the beach and get a teey bit of sand in the wrong place!
This article has failed to mention what is already going on!
What about the millions of Syrian Climate Change Refugees who have fled north from civil war and the drought that contributed to that war?
The Syrian crises is just a prelude of things to come!
Anyone who is familiar with the "Wet Bulb Temperature" knows that as the climate warms, humidity will rise and at a certain point, a growing amount of areas will be come uninhabitable. Case in point: November 2018, record temperatures in Australia decimated Flying Foxes. The mammals couldn't regulate their body temperature during the heat wave and died.
As our climate warms, larger mammals, including people, will die. In addition, trees won't be able to handle the heat - 100 million trees have died in California as a result of heat and drought.
What do you think is going on in the Amazon? Drought, rising heat, rising humidity, deforestation, fires, violence - all of which are connected and are causing a growing number of areas to become uninhabitable!
In 2017, there were 303 K who were apprehended at our boarders trying to cross illegally. A decade earlier, that number was at 1.6 million. As CO2 levels continue to rise, along with humidity and temperature, it is my prediction that we will see 10 times more people coming across our borders... and that number will grow!
As that happens, areas in the United States will become uninhabitable (Google it).
My prediction? Watch out Canada... they're coming!
9
It’s really simple!
Do you love your kids?yourgrandkids?
Risking their future makes no sense and neither does clinging to nineteenth century tech in the twenty First!
15
Clearly, climate change is a much more pressing matter than, for example, building a wall. I hear people say $5.7 billion is only a fraction of a % of the annual budget. If so, what about spending $5.7 billion upgrading the grid for wind and solar, and putting solar plants in the deserts? How about new energy storage? How come mitigating climate change is so far down people's list?
There's a "Hard Rain's a Gonna Fall," shortly, and we're not going to be prepared for it.
96
@Pat Roberts I would add that we have the money in the public sector to do all that. We don't have to be at the whim of fossil fuel executives to finally decide to be earnest about the problem. (They aren't earnest.) #GreenNewDeal
8
@Pat Roberts
I suspect a wall will eventually be built as a response to climate change. If people are calling for a wall in light of current levels of migration from Central America, what will happen when crops in Central America fail from heat and drought year after year and aquifers dry up?
2
@Laurabat and that's just what the Koch brothers, Coulter and Trump want. They want to hide behind a wall while they soak top the resources and participate in the damage to the rest of teh world.
1
Question: I understand the economic logic of a carbon tax, and I support internalizing costs which currently are externalities. But does not redistributing the proceeds from the tax as a dividend undercut the purpose of the carbon tax and provide an incentive, as opposed to a disincentive, for the economy as a whole to continue to rely on fossil fuels? Looking for information.
1
@Dylan Sanders
No. A carbon tax would change relative prices, encouraging people to consume less of more carbon-intensive products. The question about a carbon tax though is how effective it would be in shifting consumption.
5
@Dylan Sanders A carbon tax is about changing incentives. If you have a long automotive commute to work and gasoline is $5/gal (as opposed to the $2.25 that it is today) you might move closer to work, buy a fuel efficient car or (God forbid) car pool. Irregardless of "redistributing the proceeds from the tax as a dividend", those options to reduce costs are available to you. Some people will make adjustments and save money, others will not, and pay the price.
3
@Dylan Sanders, you might want to research the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend a bit. It's an interesting case study in the political dynamics of the dividend approach, particularly as it relates to your question about incentives!
1
It is amazing the number of people who think that buying an electric car, installing solar, recycling or eating less meat is doing their part to save the planet!
First, of the 3 buildings on my property, one is 100% solar powered. I believe in climate change. At a cost of 50k, I have lowered my energy usage by 20% and I know that additional changes must be made. But I don't live in fantasy land and have researched this subject extensively. Unfortunately, the vast majority of commentators have not done even basic research on this important subject!
If you have children, a closet full of clothes, eat at restaurants, any electronic devices, a 500 square foot or larger home, a motor vehicle of any kind - you can not claim that you're doing your part!
If you eat sea food, have a pet like a dog, cat, parrot, aquarium... you can't claim you're doing your part!
The really bad part is that most people are so closed-minded that they don't even want to have a calm discussion as to why the above statements are accurate.
Our worlds population needs to be below 500 million. There are just to many people. We need to be using the energy and resources that our forefathers used in 1870.
Unfortunately, what needs to happen and what will happen are on opposite sides. Even if we stopped burning all carbon fuel today, atmospheric C02 levels would still be above 350 ppm in the year 3170.
In other words, all the experts worst predictions will come true!
21
@The Critic
If we are to buy into your commentary, the vast majority of people would simply give up, as the goals you state are essentially unattainable. I taught about climate change for about 30 years. What I wanted my students to focus on were any steps they could take, no matter how small. If they were mindful of taking small steps, at some point they might take larger ones. We also discussed family size. As college students, they were on the cusp of starting families, deciding on lifestyles, etc. Personally, I only had one child, we purchased solar panels about 3 years ago, and we are mindful of reducing and recycling waste. However, we also want to live the kind of life we worked hard for. We each must compromise and hope that, little by little, our efforts might pay off. Personally, I won't see the worst effects of climate change, and there probably won't be grandchildren in my life to experience them. Each person must do their part, no matter how small. Too suggest otherwise simply allows us to dig our heads further into the ground.
24
Another example:
Switching to electric vehicles (4 plus million worldwide and growing), this has saved 250 k barrels of oil per day!
Sounds great! We're saving the world! Using less oil is good!
On the flip side, the side people have not considered...
As more and more electric vehicles are produced, instability in the world will increase!
How is this possible?
Saving 250 k barrels of oil per day also produces a glut. To much oil causes prices to drop. Oil producing nations that rely on oil revenue suffer... which contributes to instability. This instability will get worse as our reliance on oil drops!
Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Nigeria, Libya, Iraq, Algeria... not exactly the most stable governments at the moment!
Now throw in Climate Change, Drought, Crop Failures. Add in a disenfranchised population. Throw in nationalism by China, Russia and others...
Not a good mix!
4
@CEM
I would respectfully point out that the vast majority of people are not doing anything at all and never will!
My comments will never ever be chosen as a NYT pick. Nor will my posts win any popularity votes by readers of this website.
Most people are not even aware of just how much of the recyclables they turn in are actually recycled. I would suggest people Google the subject because they will be in for a big surprise.
My post does not in anyway suggest that people should not do anything... to suggest that it does only shows that people read into things what they want to read!
What I would suggest is that people Google my points and catch up with my 40 plus years of experience on the subject. If they do, they will learn about the 350ppm warning from our scientists. They should then research and see what CO2 levels will be in the year 3018 - the answer is disappointing.
My post is more about getting prepared - which means educating your children and any future Grandchildren. Telling them that tossing a pop can into the recycling container is going to help does not prepare them for the future.
If you want to make a difference, teach them the importance of education, self-defense, first aid, how to grow food, make soap, canning.
With rising temperatures comes rising humidity - a deadly combination that will make parts of our world uninhabitable - if the experts are correct!
Might want to consider Jevons Paradox and how it relates to Climate Change!
15
All of these analyses posit a value on human life -- as I remember EPA has used $1 million. And then this amount is discounted (lowered) as model assumes time passes. But should it and for how long? I think intuitively we value lives a 100 years from now less than current lives. But what about grandchildren? I would argue that almost everyone would put the same value on their grandchild's life as their own. Thus I would argue when asking how much you would spend to save a life, you ask instead how much are you willing to save your grandson. That is, we should not discount until after the time period of the typical grandchild.
3
Great timely article. Numerous economic studies (such as EMF 32 STUDY ON U.S. CARBON TAX SCENARIOS) demonstrate that If the revenue from carbon fees are distributed as dividends (that is not retained by government) the economic impacts are close to nonexistent ( without even accounting for the benefits of improved health or reduced climate change impacts). That is an inexpensive insurance premium. In fact , The net impact of the dividend would result in 2/3rds of households coming out ahead financially. A bipartisan bill (Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act) was introduced in the house and senate last fall and is expected to be reintroduced this spring. It would result in emission reductions consistent with target ranges to prevent 1.5 degrees c warming. Passing this bill into law would be a large step in solving a complex and dire problem. Let’s do it!
7
I live in a coastal community which I love dearly and I will be very sad to leave. However, I think every day about where to move my young family so we will be able to survive the changes as comfortably as we can given our limited resources.
A better future for our children... this is no longer my dream. A future is all I can ask for. I'm glad for them that they are experiencing the degree of civilization they now enjoy... I don't trust that we will be able to innovate our way out of this.
Where do I take them to put down new roots and build a foundation for their futures?
3
@michelle, that’s the spirit! Like an ostrich, bury your head in the sand (coastal community), and hope the threat goes away. Here’s a tip: move now. The ‘higher ground’ you seek is going to be crowded, thus it will cost more. Much more.
It is not my intention to criticize you because almost everyone reading this comment has your exact mindset: do nothing and hope someone else solves your problem. Here’s another tip: stand up and take responsibility for yourself. Go buy an electric car. It may not help you, except for the pleasure of driving it, but it WILL help your children and their children.
And when everything is said and done, you will be able to say you did your part instead of giving up.
1
The cost of climate change will be drastic and possibly irreversible. I know most people are waiting for some type of governmental organization to make sweeping pronouncements and inaugurate changes to make everything better.
Some of us realize that this will be too late, if it ever happens at all, therefore, we’re taking measures into our own hands.
1. New Electric Car (Nissan Leaf). Love it. Glides like on a cloud. Totally silent except for that annoying alarm while backing up. Passing up gas stations is a blast.
2. We compost. Great for the yard. Great for us. Great for the planet.
3. We recycle as much as possible. Aluminum, cardboard, etc.
4. Changing diet. Less meat. Our health is improving immeasurably.
While I am touting my own horn, I am also taking positive steps to improve my life, the lives of my family and others, and the life of the Planet. And we are not waiting on inept politicians to do it for us.
37
@PC Same here but for a different reason, reducing energy use which conserves (saves) us money. Having our own organic garden reduced the amount we purchased in grocery stores by 80%. When we built our new home 3 years ago, we have a home that uses 80% less energy, produced 60% less waste during construction, is ADA compliant and the payback is complete between 7 and 9 years years (looking more like 7 years). I rehabbed our previous home of 30 years myself to use 50% less energy than when we moved in. We drive fuel efficient vehicles. We recycle and compost. Given the number of neighbors and friends that have asked for advice or help over the years, saw the construction and myriad other little things, we convinced them to also do the same in their own small way. Reducing energy use saves money and does our small part as well as convince others to change their thinking and save the planet.
12
@tom, right on!
2
@PC
People have a tendency to read articles that support their belief system. Trust me, there are plenty of biased articles out there to support anyone's beliefs!
Okay, it's great that you have a new electric vehicle. During the mining and production of its battery in China, what was the environmental damage? Do you even know?
Okay, you get a rush passing gas stations. I pass 100's everyday without stopping - so I am not sure what the rush is all about. But, the fact remains that you are not paying taxes that are charged at the pump to use the roads. So what you have done is passed the cost on to those who are least able to afford it - the poor!
More scientific articles point out that electric vehicles cause more air pollution. Yes, I know, some states have windmills and solar panels. They also have higher electric rates and are suing their electric companies for fires. But worse, as people switch to electric, the price of oil will drop, which will cause crises in oil producing countries who rely on oil revenue... Russia, Iran, Venezuela and others - crises like internal conflict and wars - it's coming!
Recycling? How much of the stuff you recycled is actually recycled? In reality, the number is about 6%.. bet you didn't know that!
My point being is that if people want to make a difference... they will have to make drastic changes by using the same amount of energy that people used in 1870... my bet is that you're a long way from that goal!
11