Climate Change Action- More Affordable Now than Later
Nicholas Stern, former World Bank chief economist, is issuing the findings of a commissioned report to the top twenty polluters in the world today, which essentially states that addressing global warming now will cost much less than it will in the future. This comes as no surprise, given the old adage that "a stitch in time saves nine." Climate change activists and interest groups have long been aware of the fact that any kind of progress will have to come in a language that industries and governments understand, and that language is punctuated with dollar signs.
Barring the osterich response, the most common global warming skeptic rebuttal is that it would be too expensive for citizens, industries, and governments to change their lifestyle to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and even in the face of global warming we can always just adapt, right? Isn't that what humans do?
Consider the "mitigation" costs to increased insurance rates beacuse of increased storm severity, coastal flooding, and drought. Consider the increased cost of food as crops fail because of changes in water availability. Consider the fact that trees like ash, elm, spruce, and possibly aspen are dying in unprecedented numbers because of disease and insect outbreaks that are likely related to climate (not to mention the fact that invasive species often thrive when other plants are stressed because of warming or drought). What impact will that have on recreation and forestry? What about the cost to public health with heat and ozone-related illness?
These costs quickly add up, especially when you don't offset these figures by the amount of money people would save by using fuel-efficient cars and homes. Corporations and governments are choosing to save money in the short-term by transferring the long-term costs to individuals, assuming the trend of ignorance continues.
Barring the osterich response, the most common global warming skeptic rebuttal is that it would be too expensive for citizens, industries, and governments to change their lifestyle to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and even in the face of global warming we can always just adapt, right? Isn't that what humans do?
Consider the "mitigation" costs to increased insurance rates beacuse of increased storm severity, coastal flooding, and drought. Consider the increased cost of food as crops fail because of changes in water availability. Consider the fact that trees like ash, elm, spruce, and possibly aspen are dying in unprecedented numbers because of disease and insect outbreaks that are likely related to climate (not to mention the fact that invasive species often thrive when other plants are stressed because of warming or drought). What impact will that have on recreation and forestry? What about the cost to public health with heat and ozone-related illness?
These costs quickly add up, especially when you don't offset these figures by the amount of money people would save by using fuel-efficient cars and homes. Corporations and governments are choosing to save money in the short-term by transferring the long-term costs to individuals, assuming the trend of ignorance continues.