-Dan from Chicago-
The question has three answers, and you might be surprised to find out that two of them have nothing to do with the theoretical "tipping point" after which it will be too late to avoid some of the more cataclysmic consequences of climate change.
But first, we need to take a look at that tipping point. We currently are trending very closely to one of the more extreme prediction lines from the end of last century as shown by the graph below:
According to NOAA, the global mean temperature increase from 2000 to 2010 was 0.62 C. Matching this to the graph puts us on the high growth track, meaning that we could reach almost 1.00 C by 2030. If we wait until 2020 to start changing our habits, practices, and strategies, we will have built another generation of infrastructure (and encouraged another third of the world that is currently developing to build a generation of infrastructure) that pollutes the environment for the sake of economic growth. The cost of reversing that plan in ten years will be geometrically higher than doing it today, and the likelihood of having the social and political will to do it...even in the face of continued environemntal degradation...will be geometrically smaller. If we hit the 2 C increase in global temperature, we hit a theoretical "tipping point" after which we will create more positive feedback loops than negative, and temperature will increase regardless of any human action to abate it. These feedback loops include releasing of methane from beneath frozen arctic ice, continued acidification of the oceans, and reduced ability of plant life to absorb carbon. When driving at a high rate of speed toward what might be a cliff, no one accelerates to take their chances. At the very least you take your foot off the gas, and at best you start applying the break until you know what is coming. The good thing is that we do not need to follow the analogy with respect to our economy. The "braking" relates only to our actions ralative to polluting the environment and not to our employment of people.
The remaining answers all have to do with the myth that environmental action and economic growth must necessarily be mutually exclusive. The truth is that, 1. environmental protection actually makes markets freer, enabling consumers to more accurately reflect the cost of environmental damage in their purchasing decisions, and 2. because the primary methods of decreasing environmental damage involve employing people to provide services, we establish a stronger economy when we prioritize environmentally sound action.
We have already experienced several consequences of climate change brought about by human action relative to the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. From drought to severe weather, and the economic consequences of these events, we have seen record increases over the last decade.
Add to this, the cost of providing health insurance for those contracting asthma from the inhalation of particulate matter resulting from fossil fuel emissions, and we have a significant shifting of the costs of a product onto indirect payers. Using carbon taxes, catastrophic insurance products, and regulation, we can make sure that consumers know the true cost of a fuel source when they buy. This more closely approximates a free market, and will provide consumers with the best solution.
What are those solutions? Instead of using more and more energy to maintain quality of life, we can decrease energy use through efficiency. This means better maintenance of equipment and buildings, use of smarter technologies and higher performing appliances, and reducing our energy use. The first two strategies mean more people working, and the first idea...better maintenance...means more local people working. Every dollar spent on infrastructure and maintenance employs up to 12 more people than a dollar spent on fossil fuel energy production.
Once we have produced as efficient a system for energy consumption as possible, we can look towards smart technologies for energy production or energy service that make sense in the region. The Southwest and Southeast already employ significant amounts of solar energy on individual buildings, and the upper Midwest is starting to increase the deployment of geothermal energy storage systems. Both of these require little to no additional cost over the life of a building relative to fossil fuels, and need only the proper financial mechanism to take advantage of the environmental benefits without negatively impacting the owner's bottom line. Again, because these systems rely on local technicians to install and service, they create more jobs than fossil fuel energy purchases.
The final answer to the question of why act on the climate now (besides the environmental concerns if we do not, and the opportunity for job creation and creating a proper free market if we do) is that economies only reflect the priorities of a nation (or world) relative to the limited resources of that nation (or world). Whether we spend $100 a year on going out to the movies, or that same $100 on going out to dinner, the overall economy benefits. Businesses will respond to provide services that people want, and will compete to provide those services at a price point that people will purchase. Spending on environmental concerns is no different. The question becomes, "what do we NOT spend money on when we shift to spending more on solutions to reverse or mitigate climate change?" The answer is, we spend less on energy. We currently, in the US, spend over a trillion dollars annually on energy. If we shifted just 10% of that ($100 billion), we would produce an additional 1.3 million jobs in this country, lowering unemployment by at least 1% in the process.
In general, predictions of economic collapse from addressing environmental concerns well overshoot the economic gloom and undervalue the benefit to the economy. The biggest concern when switching priorities is whether we have the labor force to make the change happen smoothly and efficiently. Since the primary labor force needed is hands-on building and equipment people, and we have a significant number of them out of work, this seems like not only the best time to start fixing the environment, but also the opportune time to put our nation back to work with the support of consumers, and not big business or even the government.
No comments:
Post a Comment