There’s No Cheap Way to Deal With the Climate Crisis — ProPublica

An overheated climate will not allow for bargains.

As President Joe Biden delivers a unfinished plan to reduce U.S. carbon emissions to a global climate conference next week in Glasgow (Scotland), Congress and the country remain unclear about the cost of this agenda, which is contained in the Build Back better Act.

The current price tag of nearly $1.9 trillion for climate and other social spending might seem enormous — though less so than the original $3.5 trillion plan. Both would be a waste of money over the long-term.

By zeroing in on those numbers, the public debate seems to have skipped over the economic ramifications of climate change, which promise to be historically disruptive — and enormously expensive. What we don’t spend now will cost us much more later.

The compromise plan calls in half-trillion dollars to be directed mainly toward tax incentives for low emissions energy sources. However, it does not include any other provisions that would make it difficult for Biden to achieve his climate goals.

Already, the bills for natural disasters, droughts, and power outages are pouring in. The total bill will soon be staggering as global migration increases, energy debts rise, and industrial upheaval follows. The threat is so great that we need to think differently about spending. The past budgets cannot be used to guide government spending in the future.

Some climate scientists and economists have calculated that climate change could result in the United States losing the equivalent of Nearly 4%Its gross domestic product per year by 2100. This is a conservative estimate and does not include consequential costs like droughts and climate migration. It assumes that the United States and other countries eventually switch to energy from oil, coal, and natural gas. However, this is not the case as many believe. This scenario will mean that the planet will still rise by about 3 degrees Celsius from its preindustrial level by the end century. This is a significant change that would be catastrophic.

Four percent of American GDP comes out to about $840 billion each year, if figured on last year’s economy. Measured over a decade the way the Build Back Better Act is framed, it’s nearly $8.4 trillion. However, the economic cost of climate change could easily be much higher.

The temperature will rise faster and higher for every ton carbon dioxide emitted beginning today. Solomon Hsiang, an economist at the University of California Berkeley and a climate scientist, is the codirector of Climate Impact Lab. He estimates that each degree Celsius of warming would erase 1.2% of GDP annually, and these tolls will continue to mount. The United States could lose between 5% and 10.5% of its GDP annually if they fail to curb climate emissions. Based on last year’s GDP, this extreme — and unlikely — scenario could amount to nearly $2.2 trillion each year.

Since Congress was established, more than three decades have passed. Its first major hearingThe nation has spent $2.5 billion on global warming Nearly $2 trillionMany disasters were swept up by climate change, which is now believed to have made them worse. Since 2017, floods, hurricanes, and other disasters have cost billions. Nearly $700 Billion. This year, 18 disasters have caused losses of over $18 billion More than $1 billion per year.

And these figures don’t account for the drag of slowed growth. Hsiang and his colleagues have estimated, for example, that Hurricane Maria set back Puerto Rico’s prosperity By more than two decades.

What happens when these types of events become more frequent?

The Fourth National Climate AssessmentIn 2018, the Trump administration released a list of the kinds of costs Americans will see by the end of the century if emissions continue to grow. The economy could lose $155 billion each year in lost wages due to intense heat; coastal property destruction, $118billion; road damage, $20billion; West Nile virus spread, $3billion; and so on.

The warming climate will cause major disruptions to almost every service, including water and sewage treatment, mass transit, food distribution, health care, and wealth erosion. Hsiang, who presented his findings to Congress in 2019, estimates that over the next 80 years intensifying heat alone will reduce Americans’ incomes by $4 trillion to $10.4 trillion as farming becomes more difficult, food prices rise and labor productivity falls. Climate risks are already undermining the value and worth of real estate in the most vulnerable parts of the country. This includes the approximately $1.6 trillion worth privately owned property that is directly threatened by wildfires or sea level rise.

“We’re going to be burning money just to adapt,” he told me recently. “Just the status quo is going to start costing us more.”

These numbers do not tell the whole story because the costs will be shared unevenly. High-risk areas on the Gulf Coast could see their economies disappear by 20%. The Oklahoma and Texas parts of Texas have low yielding farm crops. ProjectedDrop by 70% to 90% People of color will fare worse than the poor and those with low incomes.

However, none of these projections can be regarded as a guarantee. The cost to taxpayers would be reduced if we can reduce carbon dioxide emissions as soon as possible. According to the National Climate Assessment, limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius would reduce economic harm by 30% to 60% in many cases. The Union of Concerned Scientists has found that emissions reductions can be made now, according to research Could you save?$780 billion worth residential properties, and at least $10 billion annually in property tax revenues by end of century.

We are now back at the huge reconciliation bill that is being drafted by Democrats in Congress. The Build Back better Act proposes that the next 10 years will see several hundred billion dollars annually be used to cut emissions by improving electricity generation and making electric cars more common. Medicare, subsidized childcare and other family aid would be expanded.

Climate scientists believe that any of the spending plans under consideration by Congress will pay for itself within a short time. To make progress towards the emission targets, one way is to encourage the transition from coal-fired power to electrifying infrastructure. Many economists argue that investing in social programs, such as health and child care, will also help communities and families to withstand climate-driven shocks.

The nation is venturing into an era where the siloed definitions of programs — infrastructure versus social welfare versus health care — no longer match the blended nature of the threat. Economic policy is no longer distinct from environmental policy, because, for example, creating high-paying jobs in southern Texas isn’t worth much if it’s too hot to go to work.

Just as economists have linked hotter temperatures to declining crop yields, they have also linked them to more disease, more crime, more suicides and other effects on people’s health and well-being. All of them result in losses — both social and economic — and threaten the country’s strength and stability.

The policymakers must start somewhere. Among the bill’s lesser-known provisions are funding to survey forests and to hire people to fight wildfires; to provide agricultural research for farmers whose crops won’t grow in hotter climates; to help homeowners transition from gas appliances to low-emission technologies; to study the health risks associated with climate change, which can include pandemics and infectious diseases; and to provide better forecasting of dangerous weather.

Taken as a whole, these trillion dollar-plus plans look more like down payments — investments in keeping the planet, and the U.S. economy and standard of living, as close as possible to the way it is now.

It is a risky decision to not invest in these societal defenses now.

If you look at the stakes this way, it seems prudent to invest in economic stability. Failure to respond to scientific and economic forecasts seems dangerously radical.