Decreasing CO2 now will pay dividends later

Earlier this month, members of the U.S. Senate blocked action on the Climate Security Act to reduce fossil fuel use and thus carbon dioxide emissions, and the bill was withdrawn.

The May 2008 U.S. government “Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States” reported that, since 1750, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have grown from 280 parts per million to 383 ppm in 2007. “Emissions from fossil fuel use and from the effect of land use change are the primary sources of this increase … The current CO2 concentration range of 383 greatly exceeds the natural range of the last 650,000 years as determined by ice core data.” The report defines global climate change as more than “warming” – it includes the wide variety of extreme weather events that are happening.

Here are only some of the “extreme weather events” in the U.S. this year: 75 percent of Iowa’s rivers are at flood stage in mid-June (Cedar River at 500-year flood stage); much higher than average number of tornadoes; June heat wave caused 15 deaths, (it was 110 degrees in Tucson on June 15); continued areas of long, continued severe drought in the Southeast and Southwest; and Aroostook County has had higher than normal snows, floods and a microburst in Fort Kent.

The Senate failed to take into account the following four types of costs that could have been reduced by acting now to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas.

First, the higher direct economic damage that alreadyis occurring as CO2 emissions continue to rise that would be lower if levels were reduced. On June 12, the Department of Agriculture reduced its estimate for 2008 U.S. corn production by 10 percent due to flooding in the corn producing areas of our country, raising future costs for food and ethanol. Flood costs for Cedar Rapids, Iowa, are estimated at more than $600 million. A 2007 Government Accountability Office report estimated that U.S. taxpayers will face up to $919 billion in payouts for flood and crop losses due to global climate change. In 2007, the Energy Security Leadership Council reported that the failure to replace our oil-based economy not only increases our vulnerability to events in the petroleum rich areas of the world, but also adds greatly to our Department of Defense and Department of State budgets for expenses in protecting our interests in petroleum.

Second, the costs of compliance if we wait until the emissions reductions needed are much higher. The sooner compliance mechanisms are established and enforced, the sooner emissions can be stabilized so that the compliance cost curve does not have to be as steep. Possible compliance mechanisms include carbon standards or taxes, a regulatory cap to reduce emissions with tradable permits, a renewable energy portfolio, a reduction in fossil-fuel subsidies, a mandatory increase in fuel economy standards for vehicles, investment in public transit.

Third, there are lost opportunities for economic growth in all sectors if barriers are not removed and costs not correctly placed to change the fossil-fuel based energy systems. The U.S. economy has already fallen behind other countries in the following sectors: transportation, renewable energy, biofuels, building envelope, appliances and manufacturing processes. Among the many barriers to remove are resistance by vested interests, public education and acceptance of economic-social-health risks from climate change and acceptance of new energy technologies, firms unwilling to do R&D if they cannot capture all the profits from new products once they enter the market, lack of access to financing, lack of stable policies and long-term incentives. Cost comparisons need to account for each energy source’s total life cycle costs from mining-drilling-production to distribution to final use and disposal costs as well as the indirect costs to human and ecosystem health, infrastructure damage, defense costs and extreme weather events.

Finally, the current and future costs those using energy too inefficiently will pay. The United States has much it can do to make our energy use more efficient and thereby reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Just one example: A 2007 U.S. GAO report stated that, due to the U.S. Department of Energy not meeting 34 deadlines for setting stricter efficiency standards on the appliances that use the most energy, consumers will spend at least $28 billion more by 2030 – equal to the energy use of about 20 million households.

As Lehman Brothers bank wrote, global climate change “is likely to prove one of those tectonic forces … that causes periodic sharp movements in asset prices.” Firms that recognize the challenge early and respond imaginatively and constructively will create opportunities for themselves and thereby prosper. Others, slower to realize what is going on or electing to ignore it, will likely do markedly less well. We can no longer wait for action. It is in our economic interest to act now.

Pam Person of Orland co-founded the Coalition for Sensible Energy and Maine Global Climate Change.