September, 10 2009, 12:32pm EDT

Failing to Curb Global Warming Could Cost the Nation Hundreds of Billions by the End of the Century, New Report Finds
WASHINGTON
Unchecked climate change could saddle taxpayers, businesses, and state
and local governments across the country with hundreds of billions of
dollars in damages, according to a new report
released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The report,
"Climate Change in the United States: The Prohibitive Costs of
Inaction," is an overview of more than 60 studies analyzing the
potential financial toll of global warming if we fail to dramatically
curb emissions. The costs are largely due to rising sea levels, more
intense hurricanes, flooding, declining public health, strained energy
and water resources, and impaired transportation infrastructure.
"If we don't address global warming, you can imagine a cash register going 'ka-ching' all across the country," said Lexi Shultz, deputy director of the Climate Program at UCS. "By late this century, the Midwest could be inundated with more torrential rainstorms costing tens of billions of dollars. California, Washington and Oregon could be hit with an additional billion dollars in property damage from wildfires every year. The Northeast and Northwest, meanwhile, could lose most of their snowpack, which would kill the ski industry."
The
good news is that the cost of taking preventive action would be
dramatically less than the cost of doing nothing. Two federal agencies
recently calculated the cost of a climate and energy bill, passed by
the House of Representatives in June, that would promote clean energy
technologies and curb global warming emissions. The Department of
Energy's Energy Information Administration estimated that the bill
would increase U.S.
household energy bills by only $10 a month in 2020. The Congressional
Budget Office arrived at a similar estimate. As Energy Secretary Steven
Chu pointed out, "We can move to a clean energy future at a cost of
less than a postage stamp per family per day."
"The
investments we need to make in a clean energy economy are clearly
affordable and will pay major dividends," said Rachel Cleetus, climate
economist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "What we can't afford
are the steep and rising costs of doing nothing."
Global warming already has altered the U.S. climate, the report pointed out: "Average U.S. temperatures have already risen by 2degF
over the past 50 years, and are projected to rise another 7degF to 11degF
by the end of this century" if we do not significantly cut emissions.
Given that heat-trapping gases remain in the atmosphere for decades or
even centuries, continuing to emit them at current rates would place a
massive burden on generations to come.
Below
are just some examples of costs that would be incurred due to sea level
rise, extreme weather events, and diminished tourism if global warming
continues unabated.
IN THE NORTHEAST
If emissions continue on their current trajectory, many winter recreation areas are projected to become unsuitable for skiing or snowmobiling. The region could lose $405 million to $810 million in annual skiing revenues.
Sugar
maples and other trees that produce the region's stunning fall foliage
also are vulnerable to a warming climate. The region stands to lose $5
million to $12 million annually from maple sugar losses alone, due to
shrinking tree habitat and decreased sap flow.
Sea
level rise, meanwhile, comes with a high price tag. Constructing
seawalls to protect Northeast towns and cities could cost as much as
$1.2 billion.
IN THE SOUTHEAST
In North Carolina:
A projected sea level rise of 18 inches could cost the beach recreation
industry $11 billion in cumulative damages by 2080 and cause $2 billion
in cumulative property damage by 2100.
In Georgia:
A sea level rise of 20 inches could require a cumulative $1.3 billion
in sand replenishment by 2100, and lead to a loss of 5,000 jobs in the
tourism industry.
In Florida: Sea level rise is projected to result in residential real estate losses of as much as $60 billion per year by 2100. Florida's tourism industry risks losing $178 billion annually by 2100 due to severe beach erosion, Everglades flooding, and coral bleaching. In addition, by 2100, Florida
residents could be socked with $19 billion annually in additional costs
for air conditioning. And property damage associated with more intense
hurricanes is projected to reach $111 billion annually by 2100.
IN THE MIDWEST
More
Floods: According to a June 2009 climate report by 13 federal agencies,
heavy rainstorms are projected to increase as much as 40 percent
nationwide, and the Midwest
and Northeast likely would experience the greatest increase in heavy
downpours. Recent floods portend significant future costs. In May and
June of last year, thunderstorms, tornadoes and floods caused more than
$18 billion in damage and 55 deaths nationwide, primarily in the Midwest.
More
Crop Damage: Climate change may mean wetter springs, which could delay
crop planting. One study projected a 7 percent increase in
precipitation in Illinois,
which would increase soil erosion as much as 38 percent by 2060,
driving up the costs of agricultural production. When combined with a
predicted 4.5degF increase in annual average temperatures, the annual
costs of climate change for Illinois's agricultural sector could reach $9.3 billion.
IN THE WEST
New Mexico:
The combined annual health costs from heat waves and ground-level ozone
are expected to jump by $1.6 billion by 2080. Reduced stream flows from
rivers primarily supplied by snowmelt would cost farmers an estimated
$21 million per year by 2080. In addition, wildfires would cost New Mexico an estimated $2 billion in timber value and additional firefighting expenditures a year by 2080.
California:
Annual heat-related health costs could reach an estimated $14 billion
by 2100, while rising ground-level ozone levels would boost medical
bills by another $10 billion. The cost of protecting low-lying coastal
property from sea level rise and the resulting storm surges,
particularly around San Francisco Bay, would range from $6 billion to $30 billion annually by 2100.
The
state's economy also would take a major hit. By the end of the century
Sierra snowpack could diminish by 80 percent. As a result, California's
ski season could disappear, and with it 15,000 jobs and $500 million in
annual industry revenues. Total annual tourism industry losses could
reach $7.5 billion. Meanwhile, annual losses to state agriculture,
forestry and fisheries could reach $4.3 billion. Hotter conditions
would slow production and reduce the quality of many of the state's
agricultural products. For example, milk production could fall as much
as 22 percent by 2100.
Additionally,
annual large wildfires would increase by as much as 53 percent by 2100.
Last year, the federal government spent $200 million on firefighting
efforts in California, three-quarters of which went to fight just three fires.
Washington and Oregon: These
two states together could lose $1.7 billion in annual revenues from
hydropower by 2080 because of shrinking snowpack and water shortages.
By 2080 the states' ski industry would suffer an estimated $525 million
dollar annual loss due to reduced snowfall, while the cold-water
angling industry would experience more than a $1 billion annual
decline. Oregon likely would suffer an additional $497 million in annual property damage from wildfires beyond today's price tag. Washington's wildfire bill, meanwhile, would likely be $380 million higher.
Alaska: Over the last 50 years, Alaska
has warmed more than twice as fast as the rest of the nation, and
melting permafrost has damaged roads, runways, water and sewer systems,
and other infrastructure. Continued thawing would add $3.6 billion to
$6 billion to the cost of publicly owned infrastructure by 2030, and
$5.6 billion to $7.6 billion by 2080. Oil and gas infrastructure is
particularly vulnerable to warming temperatures. Much of the
Trans-Alaska pipeline, for example, is built on permafrost.
Alaska
also is threatened by sea level rise. The cost of locating just three
threatened towns -- Shismaref, Kivalina and Newtok -- is estimated at
$405 million.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
LATEST NEWS
US Led 'Unprecedented' Surge in Global Military Spending in 2024
"As governments increasingly prioritize military security, often at the expense of other budget areas, the economic and social trade-offs could have significant effects on societies for years to come," said one expert.
Apr 28, 2025
Military spending worldwide soared to $2.718 trillion last year, meaning it "has increased every year for a full decade, going up by 37% between 2015 and 2024," according to an annual report released Monday.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has tracked conflict, disarmament, and weapons for nearly six decades. Its 2024 spending report states that "for the second year in a row, military expenditure increased in all five of the world's geographical regions, reflecting heightened geopolitical tensions across the globe."
In a Monday statement, Xiao Liang, a researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program, highlighted that "over 100 countries around the world raised their military spending in 2024."
"It was the highest year-on-year increase since the end of the Cold War."
"This was really unprecedented... It was the highest year-on-year increase since the end of the Cold War," Liang told Agence France-Press, while acknowledging that there may have been larger jumps during the Cold War but Soviet Union data is not available.
Liang warned that "as governments increasingly prioritize military security, often at the expense of other budget areas, the economic and social trade-offs could have significant effects on societies for years to come."
The United States—whose Republican lawmakers are currently cooking up a plan to give even more money to a Pentagon that's never passed an audit—led all countries, with $997 billion in military spending. The report points out that the U.S. not only allocated "3.2 times more than the second-largest spender," but also "accounted for 37% of global military expenditure in 2024 and 66% of spending by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members."
In the second spot was China, with an estimated $314 billion in spending. Nan Tian, director of the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program, raised the alarm about spending in Asia.
"Major military spenders in the Asia-Pacific region are investing increasing resources into advanced military capabilities," said Tian. "With several unresolved disputes and mounting tensions, these investments risk sending the region into a dangerous arms-race spiral."
In third place was Russia, with an estimated $149 billion in spending. Russia remains at war after launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Rounding out the top five were Germany ($88.5 billion) and India ($86.1 billion).
They were followed by the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, France, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Poland, Italy, and Australia. The report says that "together, the top 15 spenders in 2024 accounted for 80% of global military spending ($2,185 billion) and for 79% of the total increase in spending over the year. All 15 increased their military spending in 2024."
"The two largest year-on-year percentage increases among this group were in Israel (+65%) and Russia (+38%), highlighting the effect of major conflicts on spending trends in 2024," the publication continues. Israel has been engaged in a U.S.-backed military assault on the Gaza Strip—globally condemned as genocide—since October 2023.
"Russia once again significantly increased its military spending, widening the spending gap with Ukraine," noted SIPRI researcher Diego Lopes da Silva. "Ukraine currently allocates all of its tax revenues to its military. In such a tight fiscal space, it will be challenging for Ukraine to keep increasing its military spending."
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday announced an upcoming three-day truce to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe. In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called for an immediate monthlong cease-fire.
All NATO members boosted military spending last year, which SIPRI researcher Jade Guiberteau Ricard said was "driven mainly by the ongoing Russian threat and concerns about possible U.S. disengagement within the alliance."
"It is worth saying that boosting spending alone will not necessarily translate into significantly greater military capability or independence from the USA," the expert added. "Those are far more complex tasks."
Another SIPRI researcher, Lorenzo Scarazzato, highlighted that "for the first time since reunification Germany became the biggest military spender in Western Europe, which was due to the €100 billion special defense fund announced in 2022."
"The latest policies adopted in Germany and many other European countries suggest that Europe has entered a period of high and increasing military spending that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future," Scarazzato said.
As for the Middle East, SIPRI researcher Zubaida Kari said that "despite widespread expectations that many Middle Eastern countries would increase their military spending in 2024, major rises were limited to Israel and Lebanon."
In addition to slaughtering at least tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza over the past nearly 19 months, Israel has killed thousands of people in Lebanon while allegedly targeting the political and paramilitary group Hezbollah. Kari said that elsewhere in the region, "countries either did not significantly increase spending in response to the war in Gaza or were prevented from doing so by economic constraints."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Not Just for the Battlefield: Rights Group Warns of Dystopian World Where Killer Robots Reign
"To avoid a future of automated killing, governments should seize every opportunity to work toward the goal of adopting a global treaty on autonomous weapons systems," according to the author of the report.
Apr 28, 2025
In a report published Monday, a leading human rights group calls for international political action to prohibit and regulate so-called "killer robots"—autonomous weapons systems that select targets based on inputs from sensors rather than from humans—and examines them in the context of six core principles in international human rights law.
In some cases, the report argues, an autonomous weapons system may simply be incompatible with a given human rights principle or obligation.
The report, co-published by Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic, comes just ahead of the first United Nations General Assembly meeting on autonomous weapons systems next month. Back in 2017, dozens of artificial intelligence and robotics experts published a letter urging the U.N. to ban the development and use of killer robots. As drone warfare has grown, those calls have continued.
"To avoid a future of automated killing, governments should seize every opportunity to work toward the goal of adopting a global treaty on autonomous weapons systems," said the author behind the report, Bonnie Docherty, a senior arms adviser at Human Rights Watch and a lecturer on law at Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic, in a statement on Monday.
According to the report, which includes recommendations on a potential international treaty, the call for negotiations to adopt "a legally binding instrument to prohibit and regulate autonomous weapons systems" is supported by at least 129 countries.
Drones relying on an autonomous targeting system have been used by Ukraine to hit Russian targets during the war between the two countries, The New York Timesreported last year.
In 2023, the Pentagon announced a program, known as the Replicator initiative, which involves a push to build thousands of autonomous drones. The program is part of the U.S. Defense Department's plan to counter China. In November, the watchdog group Public Citizen alleged that Pentagon officials have not been clear about whether the drones in the Replicator project would be used to kill.
A senior Navy admiral recently toldBloomberg that the program is "alive and well" under the Department of Defense's new leadership following U.S. President Donald Trump's return to the White House.
Docherty warned that the impact of killer robots will stretch beyond the traditional battlefield. "The use of autonomous weapons systems will not be limited to war, but will extend to law enforcement operations, border control, and other circumstances, raising serious concerns under international human rights law," she said in the statement
When it comes to the right to peaceful assembly under human rights law, which is important in the context of law enforcement exercising use force, "autonomous weapons systems would be incompatible with this right," according to the report.
Killer robots pose a threat to peaceful assembly because they "would lack human judgment and could not be pre-programmed or trained to address every situation," meaning they "would find it challenging to draw the line between peaceful and violent protesters."
Also, "the use or threat of use of autonomous weapons systems, especially in the hands of abusive governments, could strike fear among protesters and thus cause a chilling effect on free expression and peaceful assembly," per the report.
Killer robots would also contravene the principle of human dignity, according to the report, which establishes that all humans have inherent worth that is "universal and inviolable."
"The dignity critique is not focused on the systems generating the wrong outcomes," the report states. "Even if autonomous weapons systems could feasibly make no errors in outcomes—something that is extremely unlikely—the human dignity concerns remain, necessitating prohibitions and regulations of such systems."
"Autonomous weapon systems cannot be programmed to give value to human life, do not possess emotions like compassion that can generate restraint to violence, and would rely on processes that dehumanize individuals by making life-and-death decisions based on software and data points," Docherty added.
In total, the report considers the right to life; the right to peaceful assembly; the principle of human dignity; the principle of nondiscrimination; the right to privacy; and the right to remedy.
The report also lists cases where it's more ambiguous whether autonomous weapons systems would violate a certain right.
The right to privacy, for example, protects individuals from "arbitrary or unlawful" interferences in their personal life. According to the report, "The development and use of autonomous weapons systems could violate the right because, if they or any of their component systems are based on AI technology, their development, testing, training, and use would likely require mass surveillance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Absolute Insanity': Right-Wing Activist Asks If Trump Will Suspend Habeas Corpus to Expel More Migrants
"Anyone advocating for suspending the writ of habeas corpus because they don't like due process is spitting on the legacy of those who fought and died for this country and our Constitution," said one policy expert.
Apr 28, 2025
With the Trump administration making space in the press briefing room for right-wing podcasters and other conservative "new media" content creators, viewers of briefings since President Donald Trump took office have seen his press secretary field questions about the Ukrainian president's clothing during an Oval Office meeting, compliments about Trump's "fitness plan," and attacks on reporters who have long reported from the White House.
On Monday, the first question of the briefing was derided by one Democratic politician as "absolute insanity," as right-wing commentator and influencer Rogan O'Handley—also known by the handle "DC Draino"—was given the floor to ask whether Trump will suspend the writ of habeas corpus in order to circumvent several judges' rulings and "start shipping out" undocumented immigrants without due process.
"Can you please let us know if and when the Trump administration is planning to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to circumvent these radical judges?" asked O'Handley after accusing federal judges of "thwarting [Trump's] agenda with an unprecedented number of national injunctions."
O'Handley shared some familiar right-wing talking points—saying federal judges have provided "more due process to violent MS-13 and Tren de Aragua illegal aliens than they did for U.S. citizens who peacefully protested on January 6"—as he suggested the administration should abandon the legal principle under which people who are detained are permitted to challenge their imprisonment in court.
"You have got to be kidding me," wrote Sara McGee, a Democrat running for the Texas House of Representatives.
His question came amid escalating attacks by Republicans and the administration on judges who have ruled against the White House. A Republican congressman said last month that Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. should be impeached for issuing an order against Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to expel hundreds of undocumented immigrants to El Salvador. Last week, the FBI arrested Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan for allegedly helping a migrant evade arrest by escorting him out of her courtroom.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow with the American Immigration Council, noted that O'Handley and press secretary Karoline Leavitt also repeatedly cited at least one statistic that was "completely made up"—that the Biden administration allowed 15 million undocumented immigrants into the United States—as they suggested Trump should take legal steps to force all of them out of the country without the input of the judicial system.
The undocumented population in the U.S. in 2023 was 11.7 million, according to the Center for Migration Studies, down from the peak of 12 million, which was reached in 2008.
"They've been pushing this on the right for about a week now," said Reichlin-Melnick of the push to suspend habeas corpus for undocumented immigrants. "Anyone advocating for suspending the writ of habeas corpus because they don't like due process is spitting on the legacy of those who fought and died for this country and our Constitution."
Leavitt responded to O'Handley's question by saying while she has "not heard such discussions take place... the president and the entire administration are certainly open to all legal and constitutional remedies" to continue expelling people from the United States.
Several cases of undocumented immigrants who have been sent to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center have made national headlines in recent weeks, including that of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia; Merwil Gutiérrez, a 19-year-old who federal agents acknowledged was not who they were looking for during a raid; and Andry Hernandez Romero, a makeup artist who was accused of being a gang member solely because he had tattoos.
O'Handley's suggestion that the bedrock legal principle be suspended for undocumented immigrants—hundreds of whom have already been forced out of the country without due process—came ahead of Trump's scheduled signing of two new immigration-related executive orders.
One would direct the departments of Justice and Homeland Security to publish a list of sanctuary cities and states—those where local law enforcement are directed not to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement as it seeks to arrest undocumented immigrants.
The other, Leavitt said, would "unleash America's law enforcement to pursue criminals." The New York Postreported that the order would be related to providing local police agencies with military equipment and legal support for officers accused of wrongdoing.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular