In one of my previous posts [4], I showed why despite the scientific consensus of human induced global warming, the society does not see climate change as harmful nor urgent [1][2][3]. The mainstream opinion diverges clearly on the scientific robustness and the urgency of action.
As I will motive next, climate change imposses great risk on human and environmental health. Given the amount of potential damage , the insurance of staying on the 2 degrees scenario is an act of both responsability and justice.
Despite the alarmining gap (97% on science versus 50% in some countries), we should not be in dispair, as the parallel story with tobacco and the ozone layer are encouraging [2].
The great difference with global warmining is that there is much more money at stake [2]. That generates a lot of pressure from companies (petrochemicals mainly) that would seen their margins erode, or the need to invest significantly in renewable energies [2].
Another problem is that climate change is far complex than a cause effect story (smoke leads to cancer, if you tax smoking there will be less cancer). Climate change means higher temperature but also sea level rise, species extintion, ocean acidification, lower food production, massive migration, increase extreme weather events, increased morbidity and mortality due to heat waves, more political inestability...which retrofeed and can lead to even more severe events, due to the nonlinear nature of climate [2].
In our desire to stablish some measurable target to solve the issue, scientists define a safety threshold of two degrees of average temperature increase (based on the history of the climate fluctuations), and puts the emphasis on keeping co2 emissions below a cumulative limit. As Co2 emissions are a negative externality, economists propose to fix this market failure with carbon taxes [2] globally, and apply trade penalties on those countries that do not apply such measures. Economic theory and some historical agreements (from world trade penalties [21] and the ozone layer protection [22]) suggest that this solution should succeed, with a little increase on overall tax revenues (1% of total income
[2] ).
The latest report on the adoption of carbon pricing [5] or equivalent policies (cap and trade on carbon [2]) , shows that only 25% of the polluters are implementing such measures and which means we are not reaching the global commitment to follow the 25 dollar per ton of Co2 regulations worlwide. This lack of global actions suppose an even greater cost for the future mitgation [15][16][2]. While socially feasible (since the carbon tax would imply a maximum price increase of 20% over current prices [2] , in most of the products below 5% [2]), it seems that the most affected industries, are also the ones with greatest lobby power [2][19]. The failure of our climate challenge, is nothing more that the failure of our democracies [19][23].
What would be the resulting income impact of such an unsucessful collaboration between countries in the control of temperature increase below two degrees? The answer depends greatly on the study investigated and the assumptions placed into it. In the absence of tipping points (we assume they exist, but we do not know when and how much they will express themselves) the income impact on a future five degree temperature increase scenario will mean an income loss of 5% over the total [2], while if some tipping points do happen between 3-5 degrees, up to 20% of income loss is expected [2][15]. An issolated analysis by economic sectors and its vulnerability to climate change, shows that due to the fact that farming, foresty and fishing have only a 1% contribution on the US economy, climate change, will have very modest impact on the economy. This relies on the very hard assumption that the economic sectors are not interdependent, and some as the services are decouple from nature. A quite criticized view by many other sustainable economists, largely exposed in my previous posts [6][7] [8][9][10][13][14][16], and in contradiction to the last US climate assestment report [11][12], where damages on infraestructure, energy supply and many other economic sectors where reported.
Long story short, the economic impacts on unprecendented climate change (above 2 degrees), are greatly uncertain and could range from moderate [5% of GDP] to very large [>50%] before 2100. Sadly enough, it will be more severe on poorer countries [17] ,which poses the stress that this is not only a matter of developemnt, but also of justice.
Due to the fact that the current political instiutions are not coordinating an effective global solution, a bottom up approach is required [19]. Local activism should impose pressure on a legislation to protect the natural commons (water, forestry, air...) quality, and the economic activities that ensure sustainable long lasting economies (renewable energy and public transport, education and health services, culture and local markets...) and more than simply taxing globally CO2 emissions. This will protect those elements of our life that truly matter, while avoid the injustice of climate change [19][20].
Lowering Co2 emissions will not be enough [20], if the amount of species extintion do not stop, as well as deforestation, water and air pollution. Since it remains true that not all that counts should be counted, the guidelines for the new story of climate change, should be based on more than cost, benefits or economic theory. Our beloved ones, and our own well being is at high risk, on a casino where dices are thrown by others, on your own behalf and cost [2][24]. It will be us the people, who can set the right priority on the policy agenda, and ensuring that climate change is reversed via responsible local commons management, and large scale and global agreements, once the lobby is left out of power and democracies work effectively.
[1] http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf
[2] The Climate Casino. William Nordhaus.2013. Chapter 25.
[3] Heras Hernández, F. 2011. Negacionistas, refractarios e inconsecuentes: sobre el difícil reto de reconocer el cambio climático. En: González, J.A. y Santos, I. (eds.), Cuatro grandes retos, una solución global: Biodiversidad, cambio climático, desertificación y lucha contra la pobreza. Pp. xx-xx. Fundación IPADE y Agencia Española de Cooperación para el Desarrollo – AECID, Madrid.
[4] http://alanfortunysicart.blogspot.com/2018/02/el-negacionismo-inversamente.html?view=magazine
[5] https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/29687/9781464812927.pdf
[6] Beyond Growth: The economics of Sustainable Development.Herman Daly.1996
[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjFQLGVIJak
[8] http://alanfortunysicart.blogspot.com/2016/11/limites-al-crecimiento.html
[9] http://alanfortunysicart.blogspot.com/2017/04/cuando-la-teoria-economica-se-divorcio.html
[10] http://alanfortunysicart.blogspot.com/2018/03/tecno-optimistas-winnie-de-po-y-otros.html
[11] https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/NCA4_Ch01_Overview.pdf
[12] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2018-11-30/the-economic-costs-of-climate-change-video
[13] http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/economy.html
[14] http://cleanenergycanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Costs-in-Context-Nov16.pdf
[15] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/the_cost_of_delaying_action_to_stem_climate_change.pdf
[16] http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/rome2007/docs/Impact_on_Agriculture_and_Costs_of_Adaptation.pdf
[17] https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/map.php
[18] https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/BurkeHsiangMiguel2015.pdf
[19] This changes everything.Naomi Klein. 2014.
[20] Climate. A new story. Charles Eisenstein.2018.
[21] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/us/politics/trump-china-tariff-trade.html
[22] https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-track-recovery-success-story-should-encourage-action
[23] https://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_the_case_for_optimism_on_climate_change
[24] http://www.jstor.org/stable/24434172
As I will motive next, climate change imposses great risk on human and environmental health. Given the amount of potential damage , the insurance of staying on the 2 degrees scenario is an act of both responsability and justice.
Despite the alarmining gap (97% on science versus 50% in some countries), we should not be in dispair, as the parallel story with tobacco and the ozone layer are encouraging [2].
The great difference with global warmining is that there is much more money at stake [2]. That generates a lot of pressure from companies (petrochemicals mainly) that would seen their margins erode, or the need to invest significantly in renewable energies [2].
Another problem is that climate change is far complex than a cause effect story (smoke leads to cancer, if you tax smoking there will be less cancer). Climate change means higher temperature but also sea level rise, species extintion, ocean acidification, lower food production, massive migration, increase extreme weather events, increased morbidity and mortality due to heat waves, more political inestability...which retrofeed and can lead to even more severe events, due to the nonlinear nature of climate [2].
In our desire to stablish some measurable target to solve the issue, scientists define a safety threshold of two degrees of average temperature increase (based on the history of the climate fluctuations), and puts the emphasis on keeping co2 emissions below a cumulative limit. As Co2 emissions are a negative externality, economists propose to fix this market failure with carbon taxes [2] globally, and apply trade penalties on those countries that do not apply such measures. Economic theory and some historical agreements (from world trade penalties [21] and the ozone layer protection [22]) suggest that this solution should succeed, with a little increase on overall tax revenues (1% of total income
[2] ).
The latest report on the adoption of carbon pricing [5] or equivalent policies (cap and trade on carbon [2]) , shows that only 25% of the polluters are implementing such measures and which means we are not reaching the global commitment to follow the 25 dollar per ton of Co2 regulations worlwide. This lack of global actions suppose an even greater cost for the future mitgation [15][16][2]. While socially feasible (since the carbon tax would imply a maximum price increase of 20% over current prices [2] , in most of the products below 5% [2]), it seems that the most affected industries, are also the ones with greatest lobby power [2][19]. The failure of our climate challenge, is nothing more that the failure of our democracies [19][23].
What would be the resulting income impact of such an unsucessful collaboration between countries in the control of temperature increase below two degrees? The answer depends greatly on the study investigated and the assumptions placed into it. In the absence of tipping points (we assume they exist, but we do not know when and how much they will express themselves) the income impact on a future five degree temperature increase scenario will mean an income loss of 5% over the total [2], while if some tipping points do happen between 3-5 degrees, up to 20% of income loss is expected [2][15]. An issolated analysis by economic sectors and its vulnerability to climate change, shows that due to the fact that farming, foresty and fishing have only a 1% contribution on the US economy, climate change, will have very modest impact on the economy. This relies on the very hard assumption that the economic sectors are not interdependent, and some as the services are decouple from nature. A quite criticized view by many other sustainable economists, largely exposed in my previous posts [6][7] [8][9][10][13][14][16], and in contradiction to the last US climate assestment report [11][12], where damages on infraestructure, energy supply and many other economic sectors where reported.
Long story short, the economic impacts on unprecendented climate change (above 2 degrees), are greatly uncertain and could range from moderate [5% of GDP] to very large [>50%] before 2100. Sadly enough, it will be more severe on poorer countries [17] ,which poses the stress that this is not only a matter of developemnt, but also of justice.
Due to the fact that the current political instiutions are not coordinating an effective global solution, a bottom up approach is required [19]. Local activism should impose pressure on a legislation to protect the natural commons (water, forestry, air...) quality, and the economic activities that ensure sustainable long lasting economies (renewable energy and public transport, education and health services, culture and local markets...) and more than simply taxing globally CO2 emissions. This will protect those elements of our life that truly matter, while avoid the injustice of climate change [19][20].
Lowering Co2 emissions will not be enough [20], if the amount of species extintion do not stop, as well as deforestation, water and air pollution. Since it remains true that not all that counts should be counted, the guidelines for the new story of climate change, should be based on more than cost, benefits or economic theory. Our beloved ones, and our own well being is at high risk, on a casino where dices are thrown by others, on your own behalf and cost [2][24]. It will be us the people, who can set the right priority on the policy agenda, and ensuring that climate change is reversed via responsible local commons management, and large scale and global agreements, once the lobby is left out of power and democracies work effectively.
[1] http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf
[2] The Climate Casino. William Nordhaus.2013. Chapter 25.
[3] Heras Hernández, F. 2011. Negacionistas, refractarios e inconsecuentes: sobre el difícil reto de reconocer el cambio climático. En: González, J.A. y Santos, I. (eds.), Cuatro grandes retos, una solución global: Biodiversidad, cambio climático, desertificación y lucha contra la pobreza. Pp. xx-xx. Fundación IPADE y Agencia Española de Cooperación para el Desarrollo – AECID, Madrid.
[4] http://alanfortunysicart.blogspot.com/2018/02/el-negacionismo-inversamente.html?view=magazine
[5] https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/29687/9781464812927.pdf
[6] Beyond Growth: The economics of Sustainable Development.Herman Daly.1996
[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjFQLGVIJak
[8] http://alanfortunysicart.blogspot.com/2016/11/limites-al-crecimiento.html
[9] http://alanfortunysicart.blogspot.com/2017/04/cuando-la-teoria-economica-se-divorcio.html
[10] http://alanfortunysicart.blogspot.com/2018/03/tecno-optimistas-winnie-de-po-y-otros.html
[11] https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/NCA4_Ch01_Overview.pdf
[12] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2018-11-30/the-economic-costs-of-climate-change-video
[13] http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/economy.html
[14] http://cleanenergycanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Costs-in-Context-Nov16.pdf
[15] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/the_cost_of_delaying_action_to_stem_climate_change.pdf
[16] http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/rome2007/docs/Impact_on_Agriculture_and_Costs_of_Adaptation.pdf
[17] https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/map.php
[18] https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/BurkeHsiangMiguel2015.pdf
[19] This changes everything.Naomi Klein. 2014.
[20] Climate. A new story. Charles Eisenstein.2018.
[21] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/us/politics/trump-china-tariff-trade.html
[22] https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-track-recovery-success-story-should-encourage-action
[23] https://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_the_case_for_optimism_on_climate_change
[24] http://www.jstor.org/stable/24434172
Comments
Post a Comment