Top Banner
Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek
19

Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek. Inaction “All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse.

Jan 17, 2016

Download

Documents

Marjorie Tyler
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek. Inaction “All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse.

Cost of Inaction

June Reyes and Erika Kociolek

Page 2: Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek. Inaction “All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse.

Inaction

“All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions” CIER, University of Maryland

Page 3: Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek. Inaction “All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse.

Likely Impacts of Climate Change

Frank Ackerman and Elizabeth Stanton, Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University

Page 4: Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek. Inaction “All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse.

Likely Impacts of Climate Change

Frank Ackerman and Elizabeth Stanton, Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University

Page 5: Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek. Inaction “All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse.

Climate Risks

Page 6: Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek. Inaction “All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse.

Issue Areas

Areas ImpactedWater

Coastal Impacts

Energy

Human HealthForest Fires

Insurance Claims

Agriculture

Ecosystems & extinctions

Page 7: Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek. Inaction “All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse.

Costs - EnergyUnder extreme

heat events, the increase in net energy expenses in California is expected to rise by $2 to $18.7 billion by 2100

Page 8: Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek. Inaction “All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse.

Costs - Insurance ClaimsOverall risk exposure of insurers’

has grown considerablyFor example: National Flood

Insurance Program’s exposure increased four since 1980 to $ 1 trillion in 2005 and FCIC exposure grew to $44 billion

Page 9: Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek. Inaction “All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse.

Costs - Ecosystems and extinctions Pharmacological value “Forests are an integral

part of biodiversity and store a large fraction of the planet’s released carbon, a service for which there is now a market price on the European carbon markets - tens of billions of dollars” Geoffrey Heal

Page 10: Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek. Inaction “All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse.

Costs - Agriculture Loss to Central

Valley $278.5 to $829 million, depending on the dryness of year

Decreased supplies of water are expected to diminish the value of farmland by around 36%

Page 11: Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek. Inaction “All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse.

Costs - Water Meeting increased

urban demand for water in California is estimated to cost the state $316 million to $5 billion per year by 2085

Groundwater withdrawals increased 52% in California in recent years

Page 12: Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek. Inaction “All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse.

Costs - Coastal ImpactsTo protect SF Bay

Area and stretch of coast south of Santa Barbara from a 3 feet rise in sea level, initial investment $1.52 billion and $152 million in annual maintenance costs

Page 13: Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek. Inaction “All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse.

Costs - Forests and Forest FiresTimber yields

are expected to decrease by 18% for mixed conifers and 30% for pine plantations in California

More frequent and severe forest fires are expected

Page 14: Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek. Inaction “All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse.

Costs - Human Health Tropical diseases will

spread northward, and heat waves and other extreme events will become more common

Increased incidence of asthma, heat-related diseases, and other respiratory ailments may result from climate change

Page 15: Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek. Inaction “All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse.

Costs - Miscellaneous Recreation

industry: skiing, is $1 billion for the entire region

Wine production: $3.2 billion, may be compromised as grape quality will diminish with higher temperatures

Page 16: Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek. Inaction “All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse.

Total Cost of Inaction? IPCC III estimated marginal damage of

CO2 emissions $5 - $125 per tonne of CO2 emitted

Multiply by 5,956.98 million metric tonnes of carbon emitted by the US in 2005, 28,192.74 world-wide

Total estimated cost: $29,784,900,000 - $744,622,500,000

International Energy Annual 2005

Page 17: Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek. Inaction “All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse.

Stern Report“Our actions over the coming few

decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and economic depression of the first half alf of the 20th century” Sir Nicholas Stern

Page 18: Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek. Inaction “All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse.

IPCC Mitigation StrategiesEnergy conservation and efficiency

improvementsRenewable energy (solar,

hydroelectric, wind, traditional and modern biomass, and ocean thermal energy conversion)

Nuclear energyCO2 capture and disposal

Page 19: Cost of Inaction June Reyes and Erika Kociolek. Inaction “All too infrequently, inaction is motivated by the perceived high cost of reducing greenhouse.

Discussion Questions Given the high cost of inaction,

is there motivation for governments to implement aggressive mitigation strategies and implement practical solutions ?

What is realistic prediction of future returns on capital? (how do you predict welfare of future generations) How does this represent all countries?

Climate change damages will not be distributed evenly- how do we take this cost into account when calculating “damages vs. mitigation” costs?

In addition to inequity between developing vs. developed countries how do we address future generation inequity?

Can one really do a cost-benefit analysis of climate change?

What is UCSD doing?

• Do the questions about global warming policy- how much, how fast and what cost still remain open?• Will earlier mitigation increase flexibility?• How do you take into account the real cost on the environment in the GDP?• If reductions are not done on a global scale are we really able to calculate the true cost?• How should equity be applied to developing countries?• How do we convince all countries that international cooperation could significantly reduce cost of emission reduction?