Whenever the subject turns to climate-change policy, one question constantly pops up: Wouldn't it be easier to adapt to a warmer world than to spend money shrinking greenhouse-gas emissions now? David Orr has an essay tackling this query over at Environment360, giving four big reasons why mitigation is "easier, cheaper, and more ethical" than depending solely on adaptation:
1. First, the record shows that climate change is occurring much faster than previously thought, will affect virtually every aspect of life in every corner of Earth, and will last far longer than we’d once believed. ...
2. Second, the implications of the choice between adaptation and mitigation do not fall just on those able, perhaps, to temporarily adapt to climatic destabilization, but rather on those who lack the resources to adapt, and to future generations who will have to live with the effects of whatever atmospheric chemistry we leave behind. ...
3. Stabilizing climate now will be expensive and fraught with difficulties, but it will be much cheaper and easier to do it sooner rather than later under much more economically difficult and ecologically harrowing conditions....
4. Fourth, efforts to adapt to climate change will run into institutional barriers, established regulations, building codes, and a human tendency to react to--rather than anticipate--events. There are, in economist Robert Repetto’s words, "many reasons to doubt whether adaptive measures will be timely and efficient, even in the U.S. where the capabilities exist." ...
Read Orr's piece for the longer version. Point number one deserves some elaboration. Some economists, such as William Nordhaus, have tried to tally up the costs and benefits of cutting emissions to avoid drastic climate change, like so: Estimate how much it would cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions now. Figure out how much damage climate change will do in the future. Select an appropriate discount rate to reflect the fact that humans will presumably be richer in 2050 or 2100. Then, rack 'em up! (It's also worth tossing in the secondary benefits of cutting emissions—cleaner air, better health, less dependence on Middle Eastern oil regimes...)
Now, this approach leaves ample room for disagreement. For one, the estimated costs of shrinking emissions depend on all sorts of unknown variables (the pace of technological innovation, say). Second, there's contention over what discount rate is appropriate to use (see John Quiggin for a good discussion—part of the choice comes down to ethics, specifically how much you value the welfare of future generations). Then there's Marty Weitzman's point—there's some uncertainty as to how bad, exactly, climate change could get. But the "long-tail" scenarios (in which we've completely destabilized the climate) are incredibly bad, and need to be factored in.
Here's an example: The MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change recently released the results of its climate modeling, and found that the median projections for average global surface warming by 2100 are 5.2C (9.4F). That's quite shocking, and a rise that high would produce plenty of devastating, unmanageable effects. (And warming won't be uniform—an average rise of 9.4F means a roughly 20F rise in the Arctic. Guess how Greenland's ice sheets fare?) But note this is only the median projection. On our current course, MIT calculates there's still a 9 percent chance that average global warming could be greater than 7C (12.6F) by 2100, as feedback cycles kick in. You can see all the probabilities outlined in this graph:
It's difficult to conceive of how humanity would "adapt" to a 12.6F average rise in temperature. One way to think of climate mitigation is to think of it like insurance. The McKinsey Global Institute did a study on the costs of de-carbonizing the economy to keep us below 450 ppm (that is, to glide toward the right-hand chart in that MIT graphic). They write: "The macroeconomic costs of this carbon revolution are likely to be manageable, being in the order of 0.6–1.4 percent of global GDP by 2030. To put this figure in perspective, if one were to view this spending as a form of insurance against potential damage due to climate change, it might be relevant to compare it to global spending on insurance, which was 3.3 percent of GDP in 2005." That seems a useful way to frame this question.
--Bradford Plumer
Print
COMMENTS (22)
A plus error is the same as a minus error in terms of technical accuracy.
Its hilarious to see the global warming proponents constantly proclaim that their models are wrong again and again due to error. They just don't realize it...
A plus error is the same as a minus error in terms of technical accuracy.
Its hilarious to see the global warming proponents constantly proclaim that their models are wrong again and again due to error. They just don't realize it...
cthulhu--No, not everything's equally uncertain. Notice the left-hand chart from MIT accounts for the fact that there's a small possibility that business-as-usual could mean a (significant-but-far-more-manageable) 2-3°C rise--that's what the blue sliver in the pie chart represents. It's just that this is much less likely than a >7°C rise.
cthulhu--No, not everything's equally uncertain. Notice the left-hand chart from MIT accounts for the fact that there's a small possibility that business-as-usual could mean a (significant-but-far-more-manageable) 2-3°C rise--that's what the blue sliver in the pie chart represents. It's just that this is much less likely than a >7°C rise.
Brad,
What's in the "no policy case" assumption and what's in the "policy case" assumption?
Brad,
What's in the "no policy case" assumption and what's in the "policy case" assumption?
r-ennis--Sorry, should've made the link more explicit. All the assumptions and explanations for the graph are here: globalchange.mit.edu/.../gamble
r-ennis--Sorry, should've made the link more explicit. All the assumptions and explanations for the graph are here: globalchange.mit.edu/.../gamble
This is utterly unconvincing. Given that, in addition to "the pace of technological innovation", we don't really know what changes we are likely to be able to make as a matter of government policy, how much they would cost, how effective they would be, what negative unintended consequences they would entail, or how long they would take to implement. Nor do we know what actual negative impacts of global warming to expect (panic-mongering aside), or what offsetting benefits there might be, Global Warming hobbyists should not expect much public support on the basis of this kind of presentation.
The most vulnerable are always essentially synonymous with "those who lack the r ... view full comment
This is utterly unconvincing. Given that, in addition to "the pace of technological innovation", we don't really know what changes we are likely to be able to make as a matter of government policy, how much they would cost, how effective they would be, what negative unintended consequences they would entail, or how long they would take to implement. Nor do we know what actual negative impacts of global warming to expect (panic-mongering aside), or what offsetting benefits there might be, Global Warming hobbyists should not expect much public support on the basis of this kind of presentation.
The most vulnerable are always essentially synonymous with "those who lack the resources to adapt". Always been that way. So? Does that mean we should handicap those who not only have the resources to adapt, but are likely to be the source of the kind of innovation that would be universally beneficial?
"Nor do we know what actual negative impacts of global warming to expect (panic-mongering aside)"
Yes, we have a decent idea. The IPCC did a whole report on this, and the "offsetting benefits" aren't very numerous:
www.ipcc.ch/.../ar4-wg2.htm
The short version: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm.pdf
"Nor do we know what actual negative impacts of global warming to expect (panic-mongering aside)"
Yes, we have a decent idea. The IPCC did a whole report on this, and the "offsetting benefits" aren't very numerous:
www.ipcc.ch/.../ar4-wg2.htm
The short version: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm.pdf
The Matter With Kansas: What Role Did The State's Political Climate Play In The Murder Of Dr. George
The Matter With Kansas: What Role Did The State's Political Climate Play In The Murder Of Dr. George
Nobody advocates MIT's "no policy" scenario Brad and you know it! These graphs are loaded and propagandistic.
Nobody advocates MIT's "no policy" scenario Brad and you know it! These graphs are loaded and propagandistic.
If we don't do something now it is quite likely that we *won't* be richer in 2050-2100. Don't forget that oil is also going to run out. It is by no means clear that economic growth will continue at its present pace.
If we don't do something now it is quite likely that we *won't* be richer in 2050-2100. Don't forget that oil is also going to run out. It is by no means clear that economic growth will continue at its present pace.
If you believe the forward looking models, and if you realize that in 20 years most of China and India will be trying to live as the US and EU do today, and if indeed we need to get to 1970's levels of CO2 emissions to avert this, then the US and EU must reduce carbon output by 90% quickly.
Currently, there is only one way to achieve this: rapid build out of nuclear and electric cars. Folks love to talk about alt energy (wind, solar, etc), but there isn't a credible government agency of think thank that believes alt energy can provide more to 40-50% of the nations total energy in 30 years. Even Obama's plan puts us as a modest 20% alt energy in 2020.
Ironically, you'd think those most troubled ... view full comment
If you believe the forward looking models, and if you realize that in 20 years most of China and India will be trying to live as the US and EU do today, and if indeed we need to get to 1970's levels of CO2 emissions to avert this, then the US and EU must reduce carbon output by 90% quickly.
Currently, there is only one way to achieve this: rapid build out of nuclear and electric cars. Folks love to talk about alt energy (wind, solar, etc), but there isn't a credible government agency of think thank that believes alt energy can provide more to 40-50% of the nations total energy in 30 years. Even Obama's plan puts us as a modest 20% alt energy in 2020.
Ironically, you'd think those most troubled by global warming would be the quickest to embrace nuclear. And yet for some reason, they are not.
"Nobody advocates MIT's "no policy" scenario Brad and you know it! These graphs are loaded and propagandistic."
Sure, the last administration of the United States advocated "no policy." Plenty of top Republicans advocate "no policy." Doing nothing is a pretty well-represented position.... But look, the point is to get a handle on what we're dealing with. Of course it's valid to model what would happen if we continued on a business-as-usual path. We want to know what we'd have to adapt to. It'd be nice if they modeled a whole range of policies, I agree. But it's absurd to say this is propaganda.
"Nobody advocates MIT's "no policy" scenario Brad and you know it! These graphs are loaded and propagandistic."
Sure, the last administration of the United States advocated "no policy." Plenty of top Republicans advocate "no policy." Doing nothing is a pretty well-represented position.... But look, the point is to get a handle on what we're dealing with. Of course it's valid to model what would happen if we continued on a business-as-usual path. We want to know what we'd have to adapt to. It'd be nice if they modeled a whole range of policies, I agree. But it's absurd to say this is propaganda.
You need to attend some industry conferences Brad. You are too caught up in the political/academic world. CAFE standards and removing New Source review restriction for GHG improvement in power plants will go quite far. I stand by my statement. The "no policy" graph is pure propaganda. And you know it, despite your protestations.
You need to attend some industry conferences Brad. You are too caught up in the political/academic world. CAFE standards and removing New Source review restriction for GHG improvement in power plants will go quite far. I stand by my statement. The "no policy" graph is pure propaganda. And you know it, despite your protestations.
"CAFE standards and removing New Source review restriction for GHG improvement in power plants will go quite far."
By all means, send along a good analysis of how much they'll actually cut.
"CAFE standards and removing New Source review restriction for GHG improvement in power plants will go quite far."
By all means, send along a good analysis of how much they'll actually cut.
You already have my analysis Brad. I sent it by e-mail a few months ago. But, as I said, this job cannot be done unilaterally. It has to be a concerted global initiative if you don't want the US economy to go totally into the toilet. I know you don't but I am not so sure about the environmental alarmists. They probably have sinecures they can rely on.
You already have my analysis Brad. I sent it by e-mail a few months ago. But, as I said, this job cannot be done unilaterally. It has to be a concerted global initiative if you don't want the US economy to go totally into the toilet. I know you don't but I am not so sure about the environmental alarmists. They probably have sinecures they can rely on.
r-ennis, you must be joking when you state that CAFE and NSR will "go quite far".
The changes to CAFE, as noted by the administration, result in 100M fewer tonnes of CO2/year. Our annual output is nearly 3B tons. Thus, this is about a 3-4% annual reduction. This does NOT change what happens in 2100 by even the slightest amount. If we were baking under Clinton and Bush, we're still going to bake under Obama.
r-ennis, you must be joking when you state that CAFE and NSR will "go quite far".
The changes to CAFE, as noted by the administration, result in 100M fewer tonnes of CO2/year. Our annual output is nearly 3B tons. Thus, this is about a 3-4% annual reduction. This does NOT change what happens in 2100 by even the slightest amount. If we were baking under Clinton and Bush, we're still going to bake under Obama.
r-ennis--You're right, I found it.
Okay, the industry proposal you sent suggested that sequestering half of all carbon emissions from coal plants and improving plant efficiency could potentially reduce emissions 10 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, although emissions would rise considerably until about 2012 under this policy (and this proposal depends on carbon capture and sequestration being viable on a large scale--still an open question). Without CCS, just relying on improved thermal efficiency alone would allow emissions to increase 10% above 2005 levels by 2025.**
(For comparison, the Waxman-Markey climate bill aims for a 17 percent cut by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030--m ... view full comment
r-ennis--You're right, I found it.
Okay, the industry proposal you sent suggested that sequestering half of all carbon emissions from coal plants and improving plant efficiency could potentially reduce emissions 10 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, although emissions would rise considerably until about 2012 under this policy (and this proposal depends on carbon capture and sequestration being viable on a large scale--still an open question). Without CCS, just relying on improved thermal efficiency alone would allow emissions to increase 10% above 2005 levels by 2025.**
(For comparison, the Waxman-Markey climate bill aims for a 17 percent cut by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030--much more aggressive.)
Now, the industry analysis you sent does suggest revising New Source Review as one possible idea to promote efficiency, but also suggests that other public investments and financing will be necessary to generate money for carbon capture and storage. It doesn't say, as best I can tell, that revising NSR alone will get us to CCS--if all we did was revise NSR, then as noted, total emissions would still increase about 10 percent by 2025. Alternatively, the industry proposal suggests "tough new rules" for power plants as one possible approach, but says this will "increase prices substantially."
There are good ideas in here, agreed, but doing only the things mentioned in this proposal would leave us closer to that left-hand MIT graph than the right-hand one.
**(Just to show the math: 2005 emissions levels are roughly 7000MMT of CO2e... the industry's CCS-plus-efficiency proposal allows emissions to rise to 9240MMT by 2011 and then says it can get back down to ~6300MMT of CO2e by 2025, a 10% cut. Efficiency alone would allow emission to increase to 7800 MMT of CO2 by 2025, a 10% increase.)
My numbers show 14% reduction (from 2012 baseline) without carbon capture by 2025. With carbon capture, 32%. I may have revised them from what I sent you. No renewable fuels at all. They do not contribute to GHG reduction anyway, but they are being forced down our throats requiring us to make investments that would be better made for energy efficiency. Of course, investment is required and I would expect that to be private, not public. Maybe with incentives like rapid writeoff.
My analysis did not even account for increased industrial energy efficiency. Nor did it account for better fuel efficiency from our truck fleet. Both of which would become economic as energy price increases, naturally ... view full comment
My numbers show 14% reduction (from 2012 baseline) without carbon capture by 2025. With carbon capture, 32%. I may have revised them from what I sent you. No renewable fuels at all. They do not contribute to GHG reduction anyway, but they are being forced down our throats requiring us to make investments that would be better made for energy efficiency. Of course, investment is required and I would expect that to be private, not public. Maybe with incentives like rapid writeoff.
My analysis did not even account for increased industrial energy efficiency. Nor did it account for better fuel efficiency from our truck fleet. Both of which would become economic as energy price increases, naturally or artificially. Just do it in a way that creates a level playing field here and in competition with China and Indian energy industries. They are champing at the bit to put small and midsize rtefineries here out of business.
If China and India get a pass on emissions until 2020, all bets are off. If all emissions from transportation sources were eliminated in the US, the result would be negated in 8 years if these countries are allowed to continue on their present course.
"My numbers show 14% reduction (from 2012 baseline) without carbon capture by 2025. "
Yeah, to be clear, I was converting to a 2005 baseline in order to compare with Waxman-Markey (which uses that baseline).
"My numbers show 14% reduction (from 2012 baseline) without carbon capture by 2025. "
Yeah, to be clear, I was converting to a 2005 baseline in order to compare with Waxman-Markey (which uses that baseline).
Seattle Engineer, my calculations show a 7.5 % decrease from Cafe standards alone, assuming no additional energy efficiency from the truck fleet. Energy efficiency increases alone in coal burning power plants can reduce those emissions by as much as 15%. But, I agree with you that nuclear is the way to go. Maybe wind turbines will come up big but I doubt it.
Seattle Engineer, my calculations show a 7.5 % decrease from Cafe standards alone, assuming no additional energy efficiency from the truck fleet. Energy efficiency increases alone in coal burning power plants can reduce those emissions by as much as 15%. But, I agree with you that nuclear is the way to go. Maybe wind turbines will come up big but I doubt it.
How much increase from 2005 to 2012, Brad. I do not have that number. By the way, I directed my staff to review emissions at our plant and we are down significantly since 2005, while producing essentially the same product slate. This is mostly because more stringent NOx restrictions promulgated since then require closer energy monitoring and save energy. See, not all EPA requirements are unwelcome. I give credit where it is due. But, it makes me suspicious that the government may be overestimating emissions increases from 2005. We are hardly unique.
How much increase from 2005 to 2012, Brad. I do not have that number. By the way, I directed my staff to review emissions at our plant and we are down significantly since 2005, while producing essentially the same product slate. This is mostly because more stringent NOx restrictions promulgated since then require closer energy monitoring and save energy. See, not all EPA requirements are unwelcome. I give credit where it is due. But, it makes me suspicious that the government may be overestimating emissions increases from 2005. We are hardly unique.
Exactly, why can't we just live with it? A few degrees warmer in the summer is fine with me.
Anyone notice how it's now June and there are still days where the temperature is in the high 50's and 60's?
Exactly, why can't we just live with it? A few degrees warmer in the summer is fine with me.
Anyone notice how it's now June and there are still days where the temperature is in the high 50's and 60's?
When it comes to saving dwindling species from oblivion, the federal government has actually done a halfway
When it comes to saving dwindling species from oblivion, the federal government has actually done a halfway