SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Social Cost of Climate Change Vastly Underestimated
New report finds economic cost of climate change six times higher than previously estimated.
Jan 14, 2015
The economic cost of climate change is vastly greatly than previously estimated, providing justification for even expensive mitigation measures, new research finds.
The economic damages, or "social cost," from carbon dioxide emissions could include property damages from flooding or loss in agricultural yields, as the U.S. EPA explains.
While the federal government placed a price tag of $37 per additional ton of carbon dioxide emitted, study co-author Frances Moore, a PhD candidate in the Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources in Stanford's School of Earth Sciences, said the price is really $220 per ton.
By using a modified model to take into account climate change's expected impact of slowing economic growth, Moore and her co-author, Delavane Diaz, a PhD candidate in the Department of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford's School of Engineering, found that the decrease in growth "has a permanent effect that accumulates over time, leading to a much higher social cost of carbon," Moore stated.
"For 20 years now, the models have assumed that climate change can't affect the basic growth rate of the economy," she said. "But a number of new studies suggest this may not be true."
Diaz stated that this higher cost--six times greater than previously assumed--could make governments see the economic benefits of greater efforts to slash greenhouse gas emissions.
"If the social cost of carbon is higher, many more mitigation measures will pass a cost-benefit analysis," Diaz said. "Because carbon emissions are so harmful to society, even costly means of reducing emissions would be worthwhile."
The assumption is that tackling climate change while continuing economic growth is achievable as well as desirable. This is an approach criticized by some, including author Naomi Klein, who say that keeping the planet livable necessitates a shift away from a growth-based paradigm.
Speaking to BillMoyers.com in September about her newest book, Klein said:
As Michael Mann, the climate scientist at Penn State, said, there's a "procrastination penalty" when it comes to emissions. All this time that we've been failing to respond, emissions have been going up, and they stick around, they accumulate. Because we have waited so long, we now need to cut our emissions so deeply and rapidly that it does present a challenge to economic growth. This is why I called the book Capitalism vs. the Climate - because I do think the logic of economic growth is very much at the heart of this system. Maybe it is possible to have a form of capitalism that doesn't focus on growth, but it's really hard to pry apart the capitalism that we have from the idea of endless growth.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The economic cost of climate change is vastly greatly than previously estimated, providing justification for even expensive mitigation measures, new research finds.
The economic damages, or "social cost," from carbon dioxide emissions could include property damages from flooding or loss in agricultural yields, as the U.S. EPA explains.
While the federal government placed a price tag of $37 per additional ton of carbon dioxide emitted, study co-author Frances Moore, a PhD candidate in the Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources in Stanford's School of Earth Sciences, said the price is really $220 per ton.
By using a modified model to take into account climate change's expected impact of slowing economic growth, Moore and her co-author, Delavane Diaz, a PhD candidate in the Department of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford's School of Engineering, found that the decrease in growth "has a permanent effect that accumulates over time, leading to a much higher social cost of carbon," Moore stated.
"For 20 years now, the models have assumed that climate change can't affect the basic growth rate of the economy," she said. "But a number of new studies suggest this may not be true."
Diaz stated that this higher cost--six times greater than previously assumed--could make governments see the economic benefits of greater efforts to slash greenhouse gas emissions.
"If the social cost of carbon is higher, many more mitigation measures will pass a cost-benefit analysis," Diaz said. "Because carbon emissions are so harmful to society, even costly means of reducing emissions would be worthwhile."
The assumption is that tackling climate change while continuing economic growth is achievable as well as desirable. This is an approach criticized by some, including author Naomi Klein, who say that keeping the planet livable necessitates a shift away from a growth-based paradigm.
Speaking to BillMoyers.com in September about her newest book, Klein said:
As Michael Mann, the climate scientist at Penn State, said, there's a "procrastination penalty" when it comes to emissions. All this time that we've been failing to respond, emissions have been going up, and they stick around, they accumulate. Because we have waited so long, we now need to cut our emissions so deeply and rapidly that it does present a challenge to economic growth. This is why I called the book Capitalism vs. the Climate - because I do think the logic of economic growth is very much at the heart of this system. Maybe it is possible to have a form of capitalism that doesn't focus on growth, but it's really hard to pry apart the capitalism that we have from the idea of endless growth.
The economic cost of climate change is vastly greatly than previously estimated, providing justification for even expensive mitigation measures, new research finds.
The economic damages, or "social cost," from carbon dioxide emissions could include property damages from flooding or loss in agricultural yields, as the U.S. EPA explains.
While the federal government placed a price tag of $37 per additional ton of carbon dioxide emitted, study co-author Frances Moore, a PhD candidate in the Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources in Stanford's School of Earth Sciences, said the price is really $220 per ton.
By using a modified model to take into account climate change's expected impact of slowing economic growth, Moore and her co-author, Delavane Diaz, a PhD candidate in the Department of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford's School of Engineering, found that the decrease in growth "has a permanent effect that accumulates over time, leading to a much higher social cost of carbon," Moore stated.
"For 20 years now, the models have assumed that climate change can't affect the basic growth rate of the economy," she said. "But a number of new studies suggest this may not be true."
Diaz stated that this higher cost--six times greater than previously assumed--could make governments see the economic benefits of greater efforts to slash greenhouse gas emissions.
"If the social cost of carbon is higher, many more mitigation measures will pass a cost-benefit analysis," Diaz said. "Because carbon emissions are so harmful to society, even costly means of reducing emissions would be worthwhile."
The assumption is that tackling climate change while continuing economic growth is achievable as well as desirable. This is an approach criticized by some, including author Naomi Klein, who say that keeping the planet livable necessitates a shift away from a growth-based paradigm.
Speaking to BillMoyers.com in September about her newest book, Klein said:
As Michael Mann, the climate scientist at Penn State, said, there's a "procrastination penalty" when it comes to emissions. All this time that we've been failing to respond, emissions have been going up, and they stick around, they accumulate. Because we have waited so long, we now need to cut our emissions so deeply and rapidly that it does present a challenge to economic growth. This is why I called the book Capitalism vs. the Climate - because I do think the logic of economic growth is very much at the heart of this system. Maybe it is possible to have a form of capitalism that doesn't focus on growth, but it's really hard to pry apart the capitalism that we have from the idea of endless growth.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.