ABQJOURNAL OPINION/GUEST_COLUMNS: Climate Change Will Cost, No Matter What

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Climate Change Will Cost, No Matter What

By Kristine Grimsrud, Janie M. Chermak And Bob Doppelt
Climate Leadership Initiative
          Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, their impact on the environment and the cost of policy prescriptions continue to be debated in the press and by the public. Often, the argument is made that the cost of proposed policies is too great and the negative impact on an already troubled U.S. economy is a luxury we can ill afford. But without considering the costs of continuing with "business-as-usual," these arguments are incomplete. How much will it cost the average New Mexican household if we continue with business-as usual?
        With this question in mind, researchers in the Program on Climate Economics of the Climate Leadership Initiative (CLI) at the University of Oregon used available information in peer-reviewed, scholarly literature to provide an estimate of the costs of climate change to New Mexico. CLI's report, a first step toward estimating the costs of inaction with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, provides some sobering information.
        If no action is taken, CLI estimates the minimum annual cost to each New Mexican household to be $3,430 by 2020 and $5,410 by 2040. With no changes in policies these costs could rise as high as $12,000 per household per year in 2080. The corresponding minimum total costs for New Mexico would be $3.2 billion in 2020, $6.3 billion in 2040 and $18.4 billion in 2080.
        What are the sources of these costs?
        Climate change is expected to result in much hotter temperatures, which will increase the incidences of heat related illnesses and asthma. According to CLI's report, the public-health related costs were the largest contributors to the costs of climate change to New Mexico.
        Another consequence of hotter temperatures is reduced river streamflow. While water from the Rio Grande is becoming Albuquerque's major drinking water source, the river continues to provide water for agriculture, recreation and wildlife. With reduced streamflow, water dependent industries and activities will likely be impacted, through, for example, loss of employment.
        Hotter temperatures may increase the frequency of wildfires — damaging forests and destroying homes. Energy use will increase costs to keep buildings cool. Productivity of livestock can be reduced.
        In addition, there are about 15 other direct costs of climate change that are anticipated but that could not be quantified due to insufficient data. Among these are costs of more variable weather and costs associated with an increased number of pathogens.
        How likely is it that we actually will experience climate change?
        The recent IARU (International Alliance of Research Universities) International Climate Science Congress held in Copenhagen in March 2009 provides some insight; 2,500 scientists met and concluded that climate change is exceeding the worst-case scenarios of the 2007 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report and that the world is at the brink of runaway climate change. Furthermore, without immediate emissions reductions it will be very difficult to keep temperatures from rising above 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C), which climate scientists believe is the absolute maximum increase that can be handled without catastrophic social, economic and political impacts.
        A follow-up survey of the scientists that attended the science congress by the Guardian Newspaper in London found that few believe temperature increases will be held to 3.6 degrees F. Instead, nine out of 10 scientists said they thought that average global surface temperatures are likely to rise by 3 to 5 degrees C (about 5.4 to 9 degrees F) by the end of this century. Appalling consequences will result should this occur.
        Thus, while reducing emissions has costs, the option of doing nothing also has significant costs attached to it. So, either way, New Mexicans will be affected. The cost of reducing emissions will depend, in part, on how we go about reducing emissions. The Waxman-Markey bill (American Clean Energy and Security Act), which passed the U.S. House of Representatives on June 26 and now is heading for the Senate, includes a federal cap-and-trade program. Cap-and-trade policies have been shown to reduce other polluting emissions at a lower total cost than imposing required emission standards on each emitter.
        All is not bleak. The Copenhagen science congress concluded that we have the know-how, skills and technologies available right now to prevent uncontrolled climate change — though the world seems destined to still experience warming somewhere close to or slightly above 2 degrees C no matter what we do. The key to success will be to quickly overcome obstacles in our thinking, social norms and practices.
        Certainly, most of the costs of climate change cannot be prevented by emissions reductions within New Mexico alone. But if New Mexico does nothing, what is the motivation for others to do something? One thing is clear. The longer we wait to confront the problem and adopt effective emission reduction policies, the more costly climate change will be for every New Mexican. There will be no business-as-usual economy for New Mexico under a business-as-usual approach to climate change.
        Kristine Grimsrud and Janie Chermak are assistant professor and professor, respectively, in the University of New Mexico Department of Economics and members of the steering committee of the Climate Leadership Initiative at the University of Oregon. Bob Doppelt is director of Resource Innovations and the Climate Leadership Initiative at the Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon.

You also can send comments via our comment form