They avoid cogent economic analysis for the same reason they eschew science. The facts represent a threat to those who deal in climate denial because the truth refutes their policy positions. Trump's insane energy agenda does not square with the math and his policy of energy inefficiency ignores significant opportunities.
"I don't want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don't want to lose millions and millions of jobs" Trump said. This comment sounds very much like the remarks made by Republican Senator Marco Rubio. In an interview CNN's Jake Tapper Rubio said he is not going to "destroy the economy" to address climate change.
The problem is these arguments are untrue. Addressing climate change will benefit the economy and increase the total number of jobs. The green economy is an undervalued opportunity. As explained in a Washington Post article, the idea that climate action is going to destroy the economy could not be more wrong.
Republicans conveniently fail to acknowledge the cost of inaction and they ignore the $28 trillion opportunity. The idea that investing in the green economy costs jobs is equally absurd. The green economy will produce more new jobs than the old energy economy. Studies show there is more employment potential in renewable energy than there is in fossil fuels. Yet Trump undermines renewables and supports dirty energy.
Driven by sound calculations, national and regional governments are engaged in science based climate action. Republicans appear to be willfully oblivious to the math. As the world invests in the green economy Trump and his Republican minions were passing tax cuts that will massively inflate the federal deficit (i.e., expenses greater than revenues). The budget deficit was $666 billion in 2017, versus $585 billion in 2016, an increase of $81 billion or 15 percent. In 2018 the budget deficit is $779 billion, an increase of nearly 17 percent over last year. In 2019 the deficit is expected to be more than $1 trillion. This is unsustainable.
An IIED study indicates that if we do not invest in climate-resilient infrastructure the cost of climate change could be $1240 trillion. Alternatively, the same report claims we can preempt the problem by investing $890 trillion in the green economy. By 2060 the mean annual impacts are estimated to be between $1.5 trillion and $20 trillion.
Although the relative values people assign to environmental and economic concerns vary the logic of emissions reduction remains. Almost all of the data points to a net savings associated with climate action. No matter how you look at the problem the costs of inaction are far greater than the costs of action. The benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions outweigh the costs of runaway climate change by trillions of dollars annually.
This math justifying climate action is hardly new. In 2005 the German Institute of Economic Research and Watkiss et al. suggests the total cost of climate action (cost plus damages) by 2100 is approximately $12 trillion, while the cost of inaction (just damages) is approximately $20 trillion.
Since then a number of reports have come to similar conclusions. The Stern Review, the Risky Business report and countless other studies demonstrate that investing in the green economy will create jobs and generate economic opportunities.
Republicans may bury their head in the sand but this problem will not go away. The threat remains alongside the opportunity. The longer we wait to address it the more other nations will gain a competitive advantage and the more it will cost Americans in the long run.
Trump's refusal to invest in climate resilient infrastructure and the green economy will cost Americans more than they realize. The costs of extreme weather alone are already astronomical to say nothing of the toll on human lives. The economic and employment arguments are compelling, but even if we put the math aside, common sense dictates that we should be doing all that we can to minimize this civilization altering crisis.
Related
We Cannot Afford to Deny the Cost of Climate Change
The Economics of Climate Action
The Economics of Sea-level Rise
Acting on Climate Change: A Cost Benefit Analysis
The Cost of Climate Inaction/Action
Acting on Climate Change Makes Good Economic Sense According to Citibank
An LSE Cost Benefit Analysis of Acting on Climate Change
A Cost Oriented Approach to Climate Change for Conservatives
Risky Business Report Quantifies the Cost of Climate Change
Action on Climate Change a Cost Benefit Analysis
The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change
Climate Change: Frequency, Costs and Mortality (World Meteorological Organisation)
Economic Benefits of Combating Climate Change (IIED)
Economic Costs of Combating Climate Change (IPCC)
No comments:
Post a Comment