Why Fixing Climate Change is Cheap

[fushigi]

Story.

Conservatives like to claim that doing something about climate change would "wreck our economy." Not true.

Even the most stringent goal of following a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction trajectory that aims to stabilize greenhouse concentrations at around 535 parts per million (ppm) would reduce annual GDP growth rates by less than 0.12 percent per year by 2030.

fushigi

[Humble Servant]

well the GDP in the US in 2006 was 13.2 Trillion. So it will only cost a paltry $36,432,000,000. Would you care to explain how the government would implement all the programs that the global warming proponents want with only a 36 billion? Heck they can't even build a decent bridge for 36 billion these days.

[fushigi]

Actually, by my calculation it's more like $15.8bn.

And furthermore, it's not the government's money to spend. The losses would be in harm to the economy, which would be spread over hundreds of thousands of businesses and the entire population (i.e. increases in energy costs). The net effect for the individual business or citizen would be extremely minimal.

[Slevin57]

Well for capitalist countries I don't think the "green" movement will come from the government. It will come from the consumer. If the consumer wants it the market will provide.

I have noticed a recent influx of "green" building companies. They provide services to make your existing structures "green" and some design structures from the ground up.

I think the government should worry about things the consumer can't control.

Obviously some environmental regulations are necessary to keep corporations from taking advantage. It would be kind of ironic if there mass production of "green" products harmed the environment in the creation process.

[Alive]

Quote by: Slevin57 Well for capitalist countries I don't think the "green" movement will come from the government. It will come from the consumer. If the consumer wants it the market will provide.

The obvious, heavily documented problem with this approach is that the cost of damaging the environment are shared while the costs of switching to environmental-friendly consumption are all private; hence it is to everyone's advantage to not care about the environment but if everyone does that we're all harmed. In other words, environmental regulartion is indeed something the consumer can't control.

As for the article, it makes complete sense to me that reducing the effect of environmental harm would be pretty cheap. People are pretty good at finding alternative ways of doing things. Tax climate-change-inducing activities and in time the alternatives may be just as cheap as what we're currently using. Indeed, the tax is what convinces people to find better alternatives.

[fushigi]

Precisely. Furthermore, if CO2 regulations affect every business, every business will have to consider bolstering its staff with environmental consultants (this is already the case in Beijing, where foreign companies do environmental due diligence operations AND have environmental science experts analyze potential merger & acquisition targets before any investment).

That will increase jobs and create a whole new industry for R&D while fighting climate change.

fushigi

[BobbyO]

Quote by: fushigi Precisely. Furthermore, if CO2 regulations affect every business, every business will have to consider bolstering its staff with environmental consultants (this is already the case in Beijing, where foreign companies do environmental due diligence operations AND have environmental science experts analyze potential merger & acquisition targets before any investment). That will increase jobs and create a whole new industry for R&D while fighting climate change. fushigi

No, it won't. All that is done is that the company hires people who do not contribute to its growth and strenght, at the expense of hiring people who will contribute to its growth and strenght.

[fushigi]

Wrong. They can and would hire both. The only difference would be a slight loss in profits--a storm most of the companies from highly polluting industries can and would weather.

Remember chlorofluorocarbons? Companies argued in the '80s that doing the R&D and making the structural changes to replace them would cause massive harm to the economy. Well, it didn't. And now the ozone layer's actually beginning to repair itself.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: fushigi Wrong. They can and would hire both. The only difference would be a slight loss in profits--a storm most of the companies from highly polluting industries can and would weather. Remember chlorofluorocarbons? Companies argued in the '80s that doing the R&D and making the structural changes to replace them would cause massive harm to the economy. Well, it didn't. And now the ozone layer's actually beginning to repair itself.

From large and established firms, perhaps. The smaller ones? No.

In any event, you are presenting the broken window fallacy- which as the name suggests, is a fallacy.

[RickSp]

Given that the potential damage resulting from climate change is real, notwithstanding the Luddites and oil industry lobbyists, American businesses can either aggressively gain a worldwide competitive advantage by developing energy efficient alternatives or they can bury their heads in the sand and let companies in the rest of the world gain the advantage.

It wasn't that long ago wehn industry commonly dumped toxins in local rivers. Increasingly CO2 discharge will be viewed the same way.

[fushigi]

Quote by: BobbyO From large and established firms, perhaps. The smaller ones? No. In any event, you are presenting the broken window fallacy- which as the name suggests, is a fallacy.

I see what you mean, but disagree. The broken window fallacy assumes that the original act (the breaking of the window) has a net negative value, while--as Rick mentions above--cutting CO2 emissions may provide a net benefit to our economy. The crux is whether or not you believe CO2 accumulation causes the greenhouse effect, and whether or not you believe the greenhouse effect would cause damage to the economy.

Anyway, moot point as far as this thread is concerned. $15.8bn spread out over all industries throughout the entire country is chump change.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Global GDP..

What are the NATION by NATION breakdowns?

And what will the world do if say, China chooses not to make C02 a priority and doesn't change? Will the world cut back further to off set this?

Which nations will be taking the brunt to make the 3% claim a reality, and which will be skating? That's what's REALLY important.

[fushigi]

On compliance: if the US took some leadership on the issue, there's no stopping the potential for enforcement. As I mentioned, look what happened when the US stepped up and backed / enforced the Montreal Protocol (banning CFCs).

I agree that China needs to comply with climate change regulations. It's already the #2 emitter of GHGs, and the idea that it's a "developing country" and should therefore be excused is ludicrous. Its GDP's grown so fast the last decade that the government's actually taking steps to cool it down fer chrissakes.

However, blaming China is counterproductive. When the US says, "We don't regulate GHGs because China won't," China turns around and says, "We don't regulate GHGs because the US won't." It's actually a symbiotic relationship.

But come on. Since when did the US wait for CHINA to take the lead on anything? We're the world's only superpower. Hiding behind China is just wuss-like.

fushigi

[Mr.Vicchio]

That's not the point. I was asking how would this IPCC report play out over individual countries and the impact to them?

A 3% from EVERY country, I hardly see that happening.

[fushigi]

Of course the countries with the greatest GHG contribution (compared to the 1990s) will suffer the most. That means the US and China.

Russia will be a winner, since their economic output (and therefore GHG emissions) have both declined since the '90s. So will most actual developing countries, as they'll be able to use emissions trading to their advantage.

Anyway, I get your point--the US will have the heaviest burden. But guess what? The US economy makes up 32% of the world GDP, which means even if Americans had to foot the ENTIRE bill, it'd still only reduce economic growth by a factor of 0.36%.

If it's a comparative loss to competitor economies, I suggest you stop worrying. There's no future of GHG cuts in which Europe, China, and Japan don't have to take part.

But the US has to take the lead.

[Mr.Vicchio]

The US has to take it in the shorts, you're predictions are based on "best case" scenario's and assume they'll actually have any real measurable effect....

[RickSp]

An interesting article of how the Chinese are taking advantage of energy credits to fund clean energy.

Clean Power That Reaps a Whirlwind

[Mr.Vicchio]

Carbon credits on a global scale...

I love it Rick.

[RickSp]

So you are arguing that reducing China's green house emissions are a bad thing? What more pollution is good? Less is bad?

About what I would expect from you, come to think of fit.

[fushigi]

Quote by: RickSp An interesting article of how the Chinese are taking advantage of energy credits to fund clean energy. Clean Power That Reaps a Whirlwind

Rick, I understand the theory behind this program, and it seems pretty righteous on the surface. But I feel a bit sickened by the notion that China--the country that will become the #1 producer of GHG by next year, AND has an economy that's grown in double digits every year for a decade--should get subsidies from other countries to cut its emissions.

This is akin to buying healthy foods for a man who's obese to the point of being medically endangered. Doesn't it serve logic that he might take the savings from his dietary budget and go out and buy two boxes of Krispy Kremes?

fushigi