The Real Cost of Climate change

No one argues that the cost of tackling climate change is going to come…

by Alex Shimo on Tuesday, February 3, 2009 7:14pm - 11 Comments

No one argues that the cost of tackling climate change is going to come cheap, but a number of recent reports have put an exact price tag on it. And this global problem is about as expensive as they come. If you want to keep the planet cool, and stabilize the amount of carbon dioxide at 450 parts per million (ppm), which was the target set by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that will cost $542 billion US per year, every year till 2030, according to the World Energy Outlook (WEO). The EU estimates that it about half that cost, or about $224 billion US per year. A research group called New Energy Finance sides with the WEO, putting the price tag at $515 billion US dollars a year.

The discrepancies between these two estimates depend on how quickly you think renewable energies are going to improve and the cost will decrease. (The cost of renewable energy will certainly fall: solar power has fallen greatly in price as the technology has improved.) But can it come down quickly enough? Suppose you’re an optimist and low ball the cost, like the bureaucrats at the EU, then the cost of reducing emissions to tackle climate change is mere $224 billion US per year, or $276 billion CAD. That’s $276 billion each year for the next 20 years. Which makes one wonder, where is all this money going to come from?

Bookmark and Share
  • Jarrid

    Where is all this money going to come from?

    I propose that when countries do their national census, they add a question in the questionnaire as to whether the particular citizen beleives that anthropogenic global warming is a serious threat to the planet and whether something should be done about it. If they answer yes, then they should be required to pony up the requisite amount of money, pro-rated among the other AGW beleiving citizens, which would consist of that country’s particular monetary share of its global duty to save the planet. I’ve noticed that the AGW crowd are highly motivated to do what’s best and we’ll raise the money lickety-split. And the rest of us who see this as a non-problem won’t be obliged to impoverish ourselves for fixing something that ain’t broke.

    That sounds like a win-win solution.

    • T. Thwim

      Fair enough. Do we get to pump the CO2 into your house? After all, it has no ill effects, right?

      • Jarrid

        Carbon Dioxide or CO2 is hardly a poison. According to wikipedia:

        1) Carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere is considered a trace gas currently occurring at an average concentration of about 385 parts per million by volume or 582 parts per million by mass.

        2) Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4–5 times during the Jurassic period and then maintained a slow decline until the industrial revolution, with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.

        3) Death caused by high concentrations of CO2 are rare and statistically negligent.

        T.Thwim you wouldn’t be confusing CO2 with CO or carbon monoxide which is a highly toxic gas?

    • camacleod

      I’d like similar questions on roads, sports teams, and charity sponsorship so I can reduce my taxes and not pay for anything I don’t like. Actually, can you adjust so that I only pay for the specific sections of the subway I use, and not the other useless portions? I’d also like to remove my financial support for bridges, because I don’t believe they help. Countless engineers disagree, but clearly the popular opinion is what matters in the area of science.

      Learn more about the science: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

  • GRM

    I don’t think that this is an accurate headline.

    An example of the “cost of climate change” would be something like poor skiing weather that is hurting tourism. There’s an economic figure that the author is attributing climate change — hence “cost” and “climate change.” The event also implies that this is a resulting cost to climate change, but a passive one.

    This story is about how much it is projected to cost to fix (or manage) the effects of climate change. That’s a proactive cost, meaning one that we can choose to pay or not. At the very least, there should be verb in the headline. (And, no, I don’t think that “change” in “climate change” counts.)

  • http://macleans.ca kc

    Over $500billion pr yr. Does it mean my taxes will go up?I better get a cheque then, hang on a mo will you. Back in a minute…………

  • Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

    A better question: how much will the counterfactual cost; that is, how much would unchecked global warming cost the economy?

    • Jarrid

      That’s an interesting hypothetical, but a hypothetical nonetheless. A hypothesis lacking a sound factual foundation. “Unchecked global warming” is as real as a scary science fiction thriller.

      A better question: when was the last time that human folly cost us ($500,000,000,000.00 Billion X 22 years =)$11,000,000,000,000.00 Trillion dollars.? A wild guess: WWII??

      • camacleod

        Nope, it was way cheaper. Clearly we should have more wars – volume discount! (kidding)

        More: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/11/big-bailouts-bigger-bucks/

        Thing is, the counterfactual is actually not hypothetical, it’s just the final bill total that’s a question. We don’t know specifically what the final bill will be, but we know what the likely ranges of some climate effects will be (like the potential rise in sea levels, and drought issues in Australia, central US, Africa). Each of these things can easily be given a rough price tag, and they add up very quickly.

  • Jarrid

    I have to chuckle at the lack of pro-AGW commenters on this thread. They talk a good talk about anthropogenic global warming but when it comes to talk about paying the bills they fade into the woodwork.

    • Ti-Guy

      What was there to discuss here? A whole lot of nothing.

      I avoid these topics because a) I don’t have any particular expertise to share and b) You don’t either but that doesn’t stop you.

From Macleans