ProPublica
Abonné·e de Mediapart

Billet publié dans

Édition

ProPublica

Suivi par 38 abonnés

Billet de blog 2 nov. 2021

ProPublica
Abonné·e de Mediapart

There's no cheap way to deal with the climate crisis

Warming will bring enormous economic costs but cutting emissions now will save money later, reports US investigative newsroom ProPublica in this analysis of the debate in America over tackling the climate crisis.

ProPublica
Abonné·e de Mediapart

Ce blog est personnel, la rédaction n’est pas à l’origine de ses contenus.

By Abrahm Lustgarten

(This article was co-published with The New York Times)

There will be no bargains with an overheating climate.

As President Joe Biden takes an unfinished plan for U.S. emissions cuts to a global climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland, Congress and the country remain hung up on what that agenda, wrapped in the Build Back Better Act, might cost.

The current price tag of nearly $1.9 trillion for climate and other social spending might seem enormous — though less so than the original $3.5 trillion plan. But over the long term, either would be a pittance.

By zeroing in on those numbers, the public debate seems to have skipped over the economic ramifications of climate change, which promise to be historically disruptive — and enormously expensive. What we don’t spend now will cost us much more later.

The compromise plan calls for a half-trillion dollars directed largely toward tax incentives for low-emission energy sources. But it omits other provisions, which will make it hard for Biden to reach his climate goals.

The bills for natural disasters and droughts and power outages are already pouring in. Within a few decades, the total bill will be astronomical, as energy debts surge, global migration swells and industrial upheaval follows. The scale of the threat demands a new way of thinking about spending. Past budgets can no longer guide how governments spend money in the future.

Some economists and climate scientists have calculated that climate change could cost the United States the equivalent of nearly 4% of its gross domestic product a year by 2100. Four percent is likely a conservative estimate; it leaves out consequential costs like damages from drought and climate migration. It assumes the United States and other nations eventually move away from energy generated by oil, coal and natural gas, though not as immediately as many say is needed. In this scenario, the planet will still warm by around 3 degrees Celsius by the end of the century from preindustrial levels, a change that would be disastrous.

Four percent of American GDP comes out to about $840 billion each year, if figured on last year’s economy. Measured over a decade the way the Build Back Better Act is framed, it’s nearly $8.4 trillion. But the actual cost of climate change to the economy could easily be far greater.

For every ton of carbon dioxide emitted starting today, temperatures will rise higher and faster. Solomon Hsiang, an economist and climate scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, and the co-director of the research group Climate Impact Lab, estimates that each degree Celsius of warming will erase 1.2% of GDP per year, and those tolls will mount. Failure to curb climate emissions at all could put the United States on a path to losing 5% to 10.5% of its GDP annually. Based on last year’s GDP, this extreme — and unlikely — scenario could amount to nearly $2.2 trillion each year.

In the more than three decades since Congress held its first major hearing on global warming, the nation has spent nearly $2 trillion sweeping up from disasters, many now believed to have been made worse by climate change. Since 2017, floods, hurricanes and other disasters that have cost nearly $700 billion. This year alone has seen 18 disasters causing losses of more than $1 billion each.

And these figures don’t account for the drag of slowed growth. Hsiang and his colleagues have estimated, for example, that Hurricane Maria set back Puerto Rico’s prosperity by more than two decades.

What happens as these sorts of events become more frequent and more devastating?

The Fourth National Climate Assessment released under the administration of President Donald Trump in 2018 lists the sorts of costs that Americans will see by late in the century in a scenario where emissions are allowed to continue to grow. Labor slowed by intense heat could cost the economy as much as $155 billion in lost wages each year; coastal property destruction, $118 billion; road damage, $20 billion; the spread of West Nile virus, $3 billion; and on and on.

The warming climate will worsen virtually every existing service, from water and sewage treatment to mass transit to food distribution to health care, and erode the wealth of millions. Hsiang, who presented his findings to Congress in 2019, estimates that over the next 80 years intensifying heat alone will reduce Americans’ incomes by $4 trillion to $10.4 trillion as farming becomes more difficult, food prices rise and labor productivity falls. Climate risks are already undercutting the value of real estate in the most vulnerable parts of the country, including the roughly $1.6 trillion worth of private property directly threatened by sea level rise and wildfires.

“We’re going to be burning money just to adapt,” he told me recently. “Just the status quo is going to start costing us more.”

These numbers tell only part of the story, because the costs will be spread unequally. High-risk areas of the Gulf Coast could see 20% of their economies erased. Farm crop yields in parts of Texas and Oklahoma are projected to drop by 70% to 90%. People of color and the poor will likely fare worst.

Still, not a single one of these projections is a foregone conclusion. Eliminating as much carbon dioxide emissions as possible now would reduce the cost to taxpayers later. The National Climate Assessment estimates that limiting warming to around 2 degrees Celsius would reduce economic harm in many cases by 30% to 60%. Research by the Union of Concerned Scientists suggests that emissions cuts now could save $780 billion worth of residential properties and preserve at least $10 billion in annual property tax revenues by the end of the century.

Which brings us back to the sprawling reconciliation bill being assembled by Democrats in Congress. The Build Back Better Act proposes several hundred billion dollars a year for the next 10 years be used to slash emissions by cleaning up electricity generation and making electric vehicles commonplace, among other things. Medicare, subsidized child care and other family aid would also be expanded.

Any one of the spending packages under consideration in Congress is likely to pay for itself quickly, climate scientists say. Encouraging the transition to clean power and electrifying infrastructure is one way to make progress toward the emissions targets. Many economists contend that investing in social programs like health and child care will also help communities and families withstand climate-driven shocks.

The nation is venturing into an era where the siloed definitions of programs — infrastructure versus social welfare versus health care — no longer match the blended nature of the threat. Economic policy is no longer distinct from environmental policy, because, for example, creating high-paying jobs in southern Texas isn’t worth much if it’s too hot to go to work.

Just as economists have linked hotter temperatures to declining crop yields, they have also linked them to more disease, more crime, more suicides and other effects on people’s health and well-being. All of them result in losses — both social and economic — and threaten the country’s strength and stability.

Policymakers will have to start somewhere. Among the bill’s lesser-known provisions are funding to survey forests and to hire people to fight wildfires; to provide agricultural research for farmers whose crops won’t grow in hotter climates; to help homeowners transition from gas appliances to low-emission technologies; to study the health risks associated with climate change, which can include pandemics and infectious diseases; and to provide better forecasting of dangerous weather.

Taken as a whole, these trillion dollar-plus plans look more like down payments — investments in keeping the planet, and the U.S. economy and standard of living, as close as possible to the way it is now.

Not to invest in these societal defenses today looks like an embrace of chaos and a choice to roll the dice on a period of unpredictable and disruptive change probably greater than anything in human existence.

When the stakes are viewed this way, investing in defending economic stability seems conservative. Failing to respond to the scientific and economic forecasts is what seems dangerously radical.

-------------------------

  • ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive its biggest stories as soon as they are published.

Ce blog est personnel, la rédaction n’est pas à l’origine de ses contenus.

Bienvenue dans le Club de Mediapart

Tout·e abonné·e à Mediapart dispose d’un blog et peut exercer sa liberté d’expression dans le respect de notre charte de participation.

Les textes ne sont ni validés, ni modérés en amont de leur publication.

Voir notre charte

À la Une de Mediapart

Journal
Lula se présente en apaiseur des années Bolsonaro
Dimanche 2 octobre, les Brésiliens choisissent entre Jair Bolsonaro et Lula da Silva. Après un mandat marqué par les violences et une politique favorable aux plus riches, l'ancien chef d’état affirme vouloir réconcilier le pays. Avec l’espoir de l’emporter dès le premier tour.
par François Bougon
Journal — Santé
En ville, à la mer et à la montagne : là où se trouvent les oasis médicaux
Cause sans cesse perdue, la lutte contre les déserts médicaux masque une autre réalité : les médecins libéraux s’installent toujours plus nombreux comme spécialistes dans quelques zones privilégiées. Ils sont aussi toujours plus nombreux à pratiquer des dépassements d’honoraires.
par Caroline Coq-Chodorge et Donatien Huet
Journal — France
Télémédecine : derrière « Sauv Life », le business contestable d’un médecin de l’AP-HP
Pour désengorger les urgences, le ministre de la santé pousse les « unités mobiles de télémédecine », officiellement opérées par une association, Sauv Life, qui envoie, via le 15, des infirmiers dotés de mallettes de télémédecine au chevet des patients. En coulisses, cette expérimentation soulève des questions sur le niveau du service rendu, le coût et les procédures de commande publique. Contre-enquête sur un chouchou des médias.
par Stéphanie Fontaine
Journal — Terrorisme
Une section informatique aveugle à ses propres alertes
Dans les deux années précédant la tuerie à la préfecture de police, les alertes se sont multipliées au sein de la « S21 », la section où travaillait Mickaël Harpon. Sans jamais que cela ne porte à conséquence pour le futur terroriste.
par Matthieu Suc

La sélection du Club

Billet de blog
L'affrontement bolsonariste du « Bien » contre le « Mal » : erreur philosophique et faux antagonisme
[Rediffusion] Au Brésil, les fanatisés bolsonaristes se présentent en porteurs du bien. Si toute réalité humaine porte, mélangées ensemble, les dimensions de bien et de mal, lorsqu'un groupe fanatique et son chef optent pour la haine, l'esprit de vengeance, le mensonge, la violence, la magnification de la dictature et la torture à l'aide de fake news, ils ne peuvent pas prétendre « nous sommes des hommes bons ».
par Leonardo Boff
Billet de blog
Billet du Brésil #5 / Dimanche, un coup d’État est-il possible ?
S'accrochant au pouvoir, Jair Bolsonaro laisse planer le doute sur l'éventualité d'un coup d'Etat, en cas de défaite aux élections. Mais les conditions sont-elles vraiment réunies pour garantir son succès ?
par Timotinho
Billet de blog
Brésil : lettre ouverte aux membres du Tribunal Supérieur Électoral
En notre qualité d’avocats de Monsieur Lula nous avions interpellé sur l’instrumentalisation de la justice à des fins politiques à l’origine des poursuites et de la détention arbitraires subies par notre client. Nous dénonçons les attaques ignominieuses de Monsieur Bolsonaro à l’encontre de Monsieur Lula et sa remise en cause systématique de décisions judiciaires l’ayant définitivement mis hors de cause. Par William Bourdon et Amélie Lefebvre.
par w.bourdon
Billet de blog
Élections au Brésil - Décryptage et analyse
Lecteurs et lectrices des pages « International » de la presse francophone savent que le Brésil vit un moment crucial pour son destin des prochaines années. À moins d'une semaine du premier tour des élections présidentielles, le climat est tendu et les résultats imprévisibles sous de nombreux aspects.
par Cha Dafol