Next month the U.S. Senate will begin debate on a bill that aims to cut the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by about 66% by 2050.
Judging by the slew of reports released in the last few weeks, the debate is likely to center on how much it will cost the nation to make these reductions and not whether the reductions will be deep enough to avoid severe consequences of global warming.
A recent report by the Environmental Protection Agency put the cost of reducing emissions 40% by 2030 at 3.8% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or roughly $983 billion a year.
The Energy Information Administration in another report put the cost at as little as 1% of GDP, or $64 billion a year between 2010 and 2030.
And the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) released a different set of numbers pinning the cost at $669 billion annually and the loss of 3 to 4 million jobs.
On the flip side, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) released a report last week by Tufts University researchers highlighting the costs of doing nothing to reduce the effects of climate change. That report found the cost of inaction to be more than 3.6% of GDP, or roughly $3.8 trillion annually (in today’s dollars), by 2100.The report projects costs and damages for four categories:
- Hurricane damages: $422 billion
- Real estate losses: $360 billion
- Increased energy costs: $141 billion
- Water costs: $950 billion
The report also said, global warming will change the nature of where Americans live. For example, this analysis found that if global warming continues unchecked, by 2100, New York City will feel like Las Vegas does today and San Francisco will have a climate comparable to that in New Orleans. In 2100, Boston will have average temperatures similar to those in Memphis, Tennessee today.
So what are the chances that legislators will agree to upon a single set of numbers and pass the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act this year? Not good. Debate is likely to spill over into next year, when a new president–Democrat or Republican–will most likely call on Congress to reach a compromise.
But it is encouraging that the process is beginning. Last week Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee began softening the edges of the bill to make it more appealing to affected businesses and their Republican representatives.
She proposed amendments to the bill that would direct $213 billion to energy-intensive businesses over the next 7 years to help offset costs associated with capping greenhouse gas emissions. Her proposed changes also include $800 billion in tax cuts through 2050 and an additional $911 billion to promote energy efficiency aimed at protecting customers from utility bill increases, according to a Washington Post report.
In related news, environment ministers from the G8 nations agreed yesterday in Japan that greenhouse gas emissions should be cut in halve by 2050. However, they were unable to come to any agreement concerning short term targets.
Loading...