What’s It Gonna Cost, Alfie?

 

From: University of Florida/IFAS Extension Brevard County

Republicans, for the most part denying the immediacy of necessary steps to contain the ravages of climate change – literally to stop and reverse the greenhouse impact of carbon-based emissions into the atmosphere – base their opposition two factors: 1. We cannot afford the effort, which will throw too many people out of work and disrupt too many businesses. 2. We have oil, and we really should focus our money on more drilling, not wasting tax dollars to incent alternative energy (labeled as “woke”). 3. Everyone on earth needs to take steps to mitigate carbon emissions, and unless they do, what’s the point?

The general response to those in the alternative energy sectors looks like this: 1. Alternative energy is creating vastly more jobs than will be lost in the old-world fossil fuel economy. 2. We are one of the major users of fossil fuels on earth and should lead by example. 3. Burning fossil fuels necessarily results in greenhouse gasses, and some fossil fuels are exceptional polluters (like coal). 4. All those wildfires, coastal flooding, searing summer heat, general floods in some areas while others are simply permanently drying up, more frequent and intense weather disasters (e.g., hurricanes), migration of disease carrying insects follows their climate requirements… cost us trillions of hard dollars, far more than the aggregation of taxpayer dollars and investment dollars lost to climate change. And more than a little misery.

So, experts have lining up to address the most basic question. What actually are the costs to address (contain and reverse) climate change? The first step is to apply metrics that would be acceptable to the experts. A study presented in the November 30th issue of Science, by authors and Matthew Kotchen, professor of economics at the Yale School of the Environment, James Rising, assistant professor at the University of Delaware and Gernot Wagner, Columbia University climate economist tackles the conflicting valuation issues:

“How much will it cost to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on a global scale? The answer is critical for assessments of how to address climate change—affecting public support, political will, and policy choices. We find that the ‘bottom-up’ estimation approach emphasized by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports considerably lower costs for emission reductions than leading ‘top-down’ economic models. We also find that one core feature explains the vast majority of the difference: The bottom-up estimates include substantial reductions that appear to come at zero cost, or even at a savings, whereas the economic models assume no such ‘free lunch.’ The fact that different methodological approaches produce different results may not be surprising. But that nearly all of the discrepancy loads on how much mitigation is seemingly costless raises important challenges for understanding and communicating the actual costs of reducing emissions.”

Writing for the Yale School of the Environment, Dylan Walsh, explains what all that means, beginning with one example (electric vehicles). “The overall cost of an EV, when taking into account things like maintenance and operation, might be estimated below the cost of a comparable car with an internal combustion engine. EVs are also associated with lower emissions, so with this model it appears that adopting an EV would have both a climate and economic benefit. In total, the IPCC estimates that enough EVs and other ‘win-win’ technologies and processes exist to cut emissions by 16% by 2030 while saving money across the global economy…

“It is likely the IPCC estimates are overly optimistic about how little it will cost to reduce emissions, but the economics IAMs are also likely to be overly pessimistic. The true costs are likely between these two extremes… These different avenues of logic lead to substantially different conclusions. If countries were willing to invest in actions that cost up to $50 per ton to mitigate GHG emissions, the IPCC models anticipate that this would generate a reduction of 43% by 2030; the economic models instead project only a 26% reduction of GHG emissions.

“[To resolve this discrepancy, citing Professor Kotchen, Walsh adds:] First, researchers should further explore the 16% of climate mitigation measures that the IPCC suggests can save money. The authors note that this 16% accounts for almost all of the divergence between models. A better understanding of how much mitigation is truly ‘costless’ could bring the models into closer harmony… It is likely the IPCC estimates are overly optimistic about how little it will cost to reduce emissions, but the economics IAMs are also likely to be overly pessimistic. The true costs are likely between these two extremes…

“Second, reinforcing the connection between economists and the IPCC and strengthening collaborations between economists and climate scientists could provide a more clear-eyed view of the costs associated with addressing climate change. This, in turn, could help to cultivate more realistic and politically feasible policy proposals.

“Third, more research is needed to better understand barriers surrounding the adoption of mitigation efforts and energy efficiency programs. The out-of-pocket costs are not the only barrier. People have ‘nonmonetary”’considerations as well. For example, with cars, consumers have concerns about performance and familiarity with the technology. Behavioral and social science research should look into interventions that can overcome these barriers.

“Finally, the standard economic models should be continually updated to reflect the newest information on GHG mitigation costs. Currently, a process exists to update the costs associated with climate change and calibrate them between top-down and bottom-up approaches. Currently, no such efforts exist with climate mitigation costs.”

So, what do we actually know? People are dying from the heat, the loss of agricultural productivity and the mega environmental disasters listed above. We know that we face trillions and trillions in hard dollars … without having to calculate the hard individual cost of the death, destruction and sheet misery climate change is already throwing at humanity… and every living thing on this planet… including you and your heirs! The numbers are just one piece of information that would be nice to know. But it is getting worse; 2023 was the warmest year in recorded history!

I’m Peter Dekom, and how much expense would you accept to live in a world that is getting more uncomfortable, perhaps even uninhabitable, if we save that money now?