The Cost of Climate Change: We Need To Act Now
People often ask: What is the cost of climate change?
The 80 percent reduction in U.S. emissions needed to stop climate change may not come cheaply, but the cost of failing to act will be much greater.
A recent report released earlier this year – The Cost of Climate Change – makes clear that the cost of inaction is greater than action, to the tune of 3.6 percent of GDP – or $3.8 trillion annually in today’s dollars – by 2100.
In 2006, a report released by the economist Sir Nicholas Stern, at the request of the British Treasury, made a clear prediction. If climate trends continue unchecked, the global economy could shrink by as much as 20%. Taking action now, however, would only cost 1% of global GDP.
And this to talk only about the things you can put a price on. Its difficult to put a price on many of the other costs of climate change: loss of human lives, species extinction, loss of unique ecosystems, and increased social conflict. All of these are beyond the measure of money.
Putting off decisions about long-term emissions reductions will only raise the cost of making those reductions. Because heat trapping gases build up in the atmosphere, delaying action worsens the problem and makes it more difficult to stay below the 450 ppm threshold.
If we wait, we’ll have to make much deeper reductions in a much shorter time than if we start now. That only increase the danger, and the price tag.
The conclusion? We need to act now. The investment will be substantial, but the cost of doing nothing is far greater.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control knows that there is a process likely to be able to stop the statistical increase in climate disasters in short order. This process, known as geoengineering, was mentioned in the back pages of the executive summary of the last mitigation report in 2007 in a rather discouraging way. I'm sure the Environmental Protection Agency is also aware of geoengineering.
In fact, the National Academy of Science. in summarizing the output of a meeting of March 30/31 under the congressionally mandated program America's Climate Choices, said geoengineering is the only approach which can impact climate over the next 2 to 3 decades.
The basis for the suit, is - knowing that there is a probable solution to alleviating the statistical increase in climate disasters, these organizations have not acted to study geoengineering approaches; and so are responsible for untold deaths from increased tornado and hurricane activity, droughts and heat waves around the world. It is as if there were a new disease likely to kill millions of people and the Federal Drug Administration held back on a vaccine which could prevent these (statistical) deaths!!