tool name

close
tool goes here

State of our union depends on climate action

Failure is a painful teacher, but an effective one.

Published: Feb. 12, 2013 at 12:05 a.m. PST
0 comments

Failure is a painful teacher, but an effective one.

Knowledge comes from seeing past missteps clearly. But we won’t learn the lesson failure offers unless we acknowledge what is going wrong.

And right now, our nation – and most of the other nations of the world, if not our entire human civilization – is refusing to see its folly when it comes to climate change and the challenges it poses.

We could rightly view this as a scientific challenge, a moral challenge, even one of national security. But there is utility and a persuasive argument for viewing this in economic terms – in the dollars and cents we all stand to lose if we fail to learn, and learn fast.

With budget and fiscal issues top of mind in the build-up to tonight’s State of the Union address, I urge President Barack Obama to call on the new Congress to step up and grasp this opportunity: spur economic growth by addressing climate change and avoid the economic disaster if we ignore it.

Too often we focus only on what it will cost to act.

Last month, the World Economic Forum estimated it would cost an additional $700 billion a year to curb the risks of climate change, a sum that includes a mix of public spending and private investment on renewable energy and energy efficiency. When Congress last sought a legislative solution, obstructionists labeled it an “energy tax” and distorted an analysis to focus only on the costs, not the benefits.

But we all know choosing not to act carries a price tag, too.

The last landmark global effort to calculate that price tag was by British economist Sir Nicholas Stern in 2006. Stern concluded that failure to curb climate change would range from 5 percent of GDP, or $3.45 trillion a year (at today’s economy), up to 20 percent GDP, or $13.8 trillion a year.

And actually curbing climate change? Stern concluded that would cost 1 percent of GDP, or $69 billion a year.

Is it worth spending $69 billion to save $13.8 trillion? Or to put it in pocketbook terms, is it worth spending 69 cents to save $138? The answer is clear.

Changing our energy system will cost us up front, but any fair analysis will calculate the benefits ahead. Our health will benefit from energy that does not damage our climate, our food supply will benefit from a climate that does not suffer severe disruption, our modern infrastructure will survive without the extreme weather climate change delivers.

The path we must follow is clear, though it will pose many, many challenges, from developing better renewable energy technologies to walking away from carbon-polluting fossil fuels. But the status quo is not an option.

Climate change has been called the greatest failure of the market system. Fossil fuels remain cheap because the cost of resultant pollution is not calculated according to its true price. Too many economists diminish the urgency of action by discounting the value of future benefits. These are failures we can fix.

Stern’s analysis is now seven years old, and in those seven years we have seen record-breaking wildfires in the American West, catastrophic drought in the Plains, and the hottest year ever recorded in the U.S. – 2012. The first decade of the millennium was the hottest ever recorded globally – edging out the last decade of the last millennium, which in turn beat the decade before it. The trend is clear.

We need a new, cutting-edge economic analysis that integrates the latest climatic data, so we can clearly see the costs of change and the costs of inaction.

But in the short-term, Obama can be a leader on calling for that analysis, and calling for all of us to be honest about what we stand to lose if we don’t start accepting the true costs of climate change.

In his inaugural address, Obama promised action on climate change, and we all must hold him to that promise. None of us can afford the failure to live up to that vow.

Kristen Sheeran is an economist and executive director of the Economics for Equity and the Environment Network for Ecotrust, based in Portland. She wrote this for McClatchy-Tribune.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.

PHOTOS
CONTESTS

Similar stories

  • Natural gas export plans stir debate

    A domestic natural gas boom already has lowered U.S. energy prices while stoking fears of environmental disaster. Now U.S. producers are poised to ship vast quantities of gas overseas as energy companies seek permits for proposed export projects that could set off a renewed frenzy of fracking.

  • Obama ignores the obvious and takes the lazy path

    There is something profoundly timid about President Barack Obama’s proposed $3.778 trillion budget for 2014. Stripped of boasts about “investments” for the future and a responsible “balance” between deficit reduction and economic growth, the budget is a status-quo document. It lets existing trends and policies run their course, meaning that Obama would allow higher spending on the elderly to overwhelm most other government programs. This is not “liberal” or “conservative” so much as politically expedient and lazy.

  • Projected lower deficit could slow any budget deal

    The good news is the budget deficit for the current year is projected to come in well below what was estimated just a few months ago. The bad news for deficit hawks is that the development could further curb the already slowing momentum for a budget pact this year.

  • If we can’t kill farm subsidies, what can we kill?

    Symbolic of the debate we’re not having about government’s size and role – the essence of the deficit problem – is the future of farm subsidies. Running $10 billion to $15 billion annually, they don’t do much good.

  • Remarks made by President Obama at the State of the Union

    Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery - State of the Union Address