Financial Post: Climate change will cost the U.S. hundreds of billions


mentalfloss
#1
Climate change will cost the U.S. hundreds of billions, report warns

Annual property losses from hurricanes and other coastal storms of $35 billion; a decline in crop yields of 14%, costing corn and wheat farmers tens of billions of dollars; heat wave-driven demand for electricity costing utility customers up to $12 billion per year.

These are among the economic costs that climate change is expected to exact in the United States over the next 25 years, according to a bipartisan report released on Tuesday. And that’s just for starters: The price tag could soar to hundreds of billions by 2100.

Commissioned by a group chaired by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Secretary of the Treasury and Goldman Sachs alum Henry Paulson, and environmentalist and financier Tom Steyer, the analysis “is the most detailed ever of the potential economic effects of climate change on the U.S.,” said climatologist Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University.

The report lands three weeks after President Barack Obama ordered U.S. regulators to take their strongest steps ever to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including requiring power plants to cut carbon dioxide emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.



Called “Risky Business,” the report projects climate impacts at scales as small as individual counties. Its conclusions about crop losses and other consequences are based not on computer projections, which climate-change skeptics routinely attack, but on data from past heat waves.

It paints a grim picture of economic loss. “Our economy is vulnerable to an overwhelming number of risks from climate change,” Paulson said in a statement, including from sea-level rise and from heat waves that will cause deaths, reduce labor productivity and strain power grids.

By mid-century, $66 billion to $106 billion worth of coastal property will likely be below sea level. There is a 5% chance that by 2100 the losses will reach $700 billion, with average annual losses from rising oceans of $42 billion to $108 billion along the Eastern Seaboard and Gulf of Mexico.

Extreme heat, especially in the Southwest, Southeast and upper Midwest, will slash labor productivity as people are unable to work outdoors at construction and other jobs for sustained periods. The analysis goes further than previous work, said Princeton’s Oppenheimer, by identifying places that will be “unsuited for outdoor activity.”

Demand for electricity will surge as people need air conditioning just to survive, straining generation and transmission capacity. That will likely require the construction of up to 95 gigawatts of generation capacity over the next 5 to 25 years, or roughly 200 average-size coal or natural gas power plants.

As utilities add the construction costs to customers’ bills, people and businesses will pay $8.5 billion to $30 billion more every year by the middle of the century.

The report does not make policy prescriptions, concluding only that “it is time for all American business leaders and investors to get in the game and rise to the challenge of addressing climate change.”

Climate change will cost the U.S. hundreds of billions, report warns | Financial Post (external - login to view)
 
petros
#2
Cool. More scenarios.
 
Locutus
#3
weak OP is weak
 
mentalfloss
+3
#4  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

weak OP is weak

The thread about getting stuck in a giant v*agina is over here (external - login to view).
 
petros
#5
Quote:

By mid-century, $66 billion to $106 billion worth of coastal property

Why all the doom and gloom?

It sounds great for the economy.

What will the new coastal properties be worth?

When the boxing day tsunami happened peasants living seaside were washed away and then new hotels and resorts that moved in are now worth a fortune and earning a fortune from the cleaned up areas.
 
Nuggler
+2
#6
Pretty harsh thing to do to pheasants
 
EagleSmack
+1
#7
I think some big biz has figured out a way around the tards. Lip service and that is it.
 
petros
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by NugglerView Post

Pretty harsh thing to do to pheasants

But they are sooooo tasty.
 
Nuggler
#9
Annnnnnnnnnnn, heer's from the CBC:

"http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/climate-change-will-cost-big-business-dearly-report-warns-1.2685682""


Says it's gonna cost Big Business dearly...................(translation)..........Do n't pick up the soap.

Quote: Originally Posted by NugglerView Post

Annnnnnnnnnnn, heer's from the CBC:

"http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/climate-change-will-cost-big-business-dearly-report-warns-1.2685682""


Says it's gonna cost Big Business dearly...................(translation)..........Do n't pick up the soap.

Climate change will cost big business dearly, report warns - Business - CBC News

Ah, there's the link. Little bastard hiding again. No https either. ah well.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#10
Ice ages will tend to do that.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+2
#11
Move the coastal cities inward, especially to hilly areas - that'll save a bundle of money.
 
Walter
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

Move the coastal cities inward, especially to hilly areas - that'll save a bundle of money.

And it won't cost a penny to move them.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+2
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

And it won't cost a penny to move them.



It appears we agree on something.

In the past boom towns were expanded and people thrived. When these towns were no longer viable, people got up and left - they took their capital and labor so that other areas prospered. Nothing wrong with doing the same thing today. Simply get up and leave with your capital and in the long run the costs for insurance and upkeep will be considerably less than if they were coastal towns.

Therefore, these projected costs (assuming they are accurate) can be cut down dramatically.

A thought occurred to me - in the past coastal cities were essential because we exported so many goods. Today we import too damn much foreign stuff. This costs Americans far too many jobs. All the more reason to have less coastal cities - lets create our own stuff, rebuild the infrastructure, keep our capital and our jobs at home where they belong. The first step would be to move those big cities inland away from the hazards of rising cities (again, assuming this report is accurate).
 
petros
+1
#14
Why not? If the silver dries up. Move on.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Why not? If the silver dries up. Move on.


 
petros
+1
#16
How did you know I had AZ in mind when saying that? Cool place BTW.
 
Praxius
Free Thinker
#17
Quote:

Climate change will cost the U.S. hundreds of billions, report warns

Just hundreds of billions?

Small potatoes.... the last few wars have cost trillions and wasn't much of a concern regarding costs.

$12 Billion a year is like a weekend skirmish with some cave dwellers.
 
petros
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

Just hundreds of billions?

Small potatoes.... the last few wars have cost trillions and wasn't much of a concern regarding costs.

$12 Billion a year is like a weekend skirmish with some cave dwellers.

Cheap like borscht.
 
mentalfloss
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

Just hundreds of billions?

Small potatoes.... the last few wars have cost trillions and wasn't much of a concern regarding costs.

$12 Billion a year is like a weekend skirmish with some cave dwellers.


The difference is that we don't get the opium bonus.
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

It appears we agree on something.

In the past boom towns were expanded and people thrived. When these towns were no longer viable, people got up and left - they took their capital and labor so that other areas prospered. Nothing wrong with doing the same thing today. Simply get up and leave with your capital and in the long run the costs for insurance and upkeep will be considerably less than if they were coastal towns.

Therefore, these projected costs (assuming they are accurate) can be cut down dramatically.

A thought occurred to me - in the past coastal cities were essential because we exported so many goods. Today we import too damn much foreign stuff. This costs Americans far too many jobs. All the more reason to have less coastal cities - lets create our own stuff, rebuild the infrastructure, keep our capital and our jobs at home where they belong. The first step would be to move those big cities inland away from the hazards of rising cities (again, assuming this report is accurate).

You're even stupider than your avatar.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish;

You're even stupider than your avatar.




Says the one with his brain up his butt:






Great irony, indeed.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

You're even stupider than your avatar.

Explain to me why this suggestion doesn't make sense in the long term?
 
mentalfloss
#23
The economist: Climate change - The high cost of doing nothing

It was the hottest May ever, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says. The world’s average surface temperature was 0.74ºC above its 20th-century average. Alaska was almost 2ºC above its 1971-2000 level.

The heat has brought American business out in a rash. Two weeks after President Barack Obama proposed new rules ordering power stations to cut carbon emissions, the bosses of several big firms, including Coca-Cola and General Mills, demanded that other governments get on with it and negotiate a treaty on greenhouse gases.

Now former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and several other gazillionaires, including three former Treasury secretaries, have come up with new forecasts of the economic damage that climate change might do. Their study is notable for its wealth of detail and for concentrating on things you can see.

It looks at three areas where the weather makes the biggest difference: coastal property, farming and the effect of heat on work. It points out that, if the oceans go on rising at current rates, the sea level at New York City will rise by 10 inches to 20 inches by 2050 and by 25 inches to 50 inches by 2100. In Norfolk, Va., home to America’s largest naval base, the rise could be 52 inches. Increases like that would put property now worth between $66 billion and $106 billion below sea level by 2050.

Of course, being physically underwater is not the same as being underwater in the metaphorical sense. A house could still be protected — but that costs money and, anyway, it would still be more vulnerable than a property on higher ground. The study reckons that annual property damage from storm surges and other bad weather in coastal regions could reach $507 billion by 2100. Between a fifth and two-fifths of that would come in the southeast. Coastal cities such as Miami are especially at risk from rising sea levels.

Inland, the big problem is the effect of heat and drought on farming. Drought in North Dakota in 2006, for example, wiped out 10 per cent of the value of the state’s wheat crop. Such damage is likely to get worse. A recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a controversial group of scientists who advise governments, argued that cereals are more sensitive to heat than previously thought and that damage in hot agricultural areas would outweigh gains in cooler ones that warm up, such as the Pacific northwest.

If current trends continue, by 2050 America’s most productive cereal-growing region, the Midwest, will have between nine and 28 days a year in which average daytime temperatures will be 95ºF or above. For the past 40 years, it has had, on average, only two such days each year. In even-more-sweltering Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, the number of hot, hot days could rise from 39 to as many as 99 a year by 2050. The heat could cut yields in the Midwest by a fifth, the study reckons, though that assumes that farmers will not adapt by planting heat-tolerant crops, which of course they would. The problem is that, at the moment, new crop varieties cannot withstand such high heat without big yield reductions.

Steamy temperatures make people wilt, as well as crops. Previous studies have shown that, when the thermometer hits 100ºF, the supply of labor in farming, construction and other outdoor jobs falls by an hour a day, compared with mild days at 75 to 80ºF. The new study is more cautious, reckoning that labor productivity among outdoor workers could fall by 3 per cent if there were between 27 and 50 extra days of daytime temperatures above 95ºF.

That is still a great deal. For comparison, total Greek labour productivity fell only 0.7 per cent in 2013. Moreover, high temperatures do not affect only outdoor workers. Another study found that a week’s worth of outside temperatures over 90ºF cuts production in car plants by 8 per cent.

This week the Supreme Court limited Obama’s authority to use executive rules to rein in carbon emissions from some large polluters, though not from the ones which account for most of the pollution. It was a quibble at a time when, in America as a whole, business concerns about the climate are growing sharper, even if public opinion is not.

Climate change: The high cost of doing nothing | The Chronicle Herald (external - login to view)
 
mentalfloss
#24
Capitalists Take on Climate Change » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names (external - login to view)
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#25
I liked this comment from the article best:

"
The climate change issue, even though ubiquitous, does not carry enough pizzazz to sufficiently influence public perception to tackle the problem"

If I may offer a suggestion, the issue isn't pizzazz here, it's the issue that the facts do not support the idea of climate change
 
mentalfloss
+1
#26
Your suggestion has been acknowledged.

 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#27
Looks a little hazy outside... Humidity index high today?
 
EagleSmack
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

How did you know I had AZ in mind when saying that? Cool place BTW.

Because the silver dried up and that was it for Tombstone.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

The economist: Climate change - The high cost of doing nothing

 
mentalfloss
#29
Natural Resources’ sweeping report warns feds of increasing climate change, urges action | hilltimes.com (external - login to view)
 

Similar Threads

164
Climate Change report on Canada
by mentalfloss | Apr 11th, 2014
no new posts