A survey of economists with climate expertise finds a consensus that climate change is expensive and carbon pollution cuts are needed
 |
| Republican U.S. presidential candidate Senator Marco Rubio listens to a question during a town hall meeting in Waterloo, Iowa, December 29, 2015. 95% of economics experts disagree with Rubio's claims that cutting carbon pollution will hurt the economy. Photograph: Scott Morgan/Reuters |
The Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University (NYU) School of Law recently published a report summarizing a survey of economists with climate expertise. The report was a follow-up and expansion of a similar survey conducted in 2009 by the same institute. The key finding: there's a strong consensus among climate economics experts that we should put a price on carbon pollution to curb the expensive costs of climate change.
The survey participants included economists who have published papers related to climate change "in a highly ranked, peer-reviewed economics or environmental economics journal since 1994." Overall, 365 participants completed the survey, which established the consensus of expert climate economists on a number of important questions.
Carbon pollution cuts are needed regardless of what other countries do
In the 2009 version of the survey, the respondents were asked under what conditions the United States should commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 57% answered that the US should cut its emissions no matter what actions other countries take, while another 38% said that American emissions cuts would be warranted if many or all other countries commit to reducing theirs (as just happened in the Paris international negotiations).
In the 2015 survey, the number of expert economists saying that the US should cut its emissions no matter what rose to 77%. A further 18% said that if other countries agree to cut their emissions, the US should follow suit. In other words, there is a 95% consensus among expert climate economists that the US should follow through with its pledges to cut carbon pollution in the wake of the Paris international climate negotiations, and more than three out of four agreed that the US should take action to curb global warming no matter what.
 |
| Figure 9 from 'Expert Consensus on the Economics of Climate Change' 2015 report by the NYU Institute for Policy Integrity. |
This expert consensus is in stark contrast to conservative political opposition to the Paris accord. For example, Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio said of the agreement,
This kind of unilateral disarmament in our economy is reckless, and it is hurting the American DreamQuite obviously an international agreement made by 195 nations around the world is the antithesis of unilateral action. However, 77% of expert economists agree that unilateral action would be appropriate in any case, directly contradicting Rubio's comments. Additionally, 82% of the experts agreed that by implementing climate policies, the US could strategically induce other countries to cut their carbon pollution.
Climate change is already hurting the global economy
When asked at what date climate change will have a net negative impact on the global economy, the median survey response was 2025. In the recent past, climate change likely had a net positive impact on the global economy, due primarily to the effect of carbon fertilization on crops and other plant life. However, even contrarian economists agree, when accounting for the vulnerability of poorer countries to climate impacts, global warming has been hurting the global economy since about 1980.
The NYU survey asked when the economic benefits we experienced up to 1980 would be completely wiped out; 41% of respondents said that's already happened. Another 25% answered that it would happen within a decade, and 26% said we'd see net negative economic impacts by 2050. If we continue with business-as-usual pollution and warming, on average the experts predicted a GDP loss of about 10% by the end of the century, and that there would be a 20% chance of a "catastrophic" loss of one-quarter of global GDP.
 |
| Figure 5 from 'Expert Consensus on the Economics of Climate Change' 2015 report by the NYU Institute for Policy Integrity. |
Of course, ideally we would have stopped warming the planet in 1980 to preserve the economic benefits of global warming to that date. At this point it's a question of just how much damage climate change will do to the global economy, and the economic experts are worried that the results could be catastrophic.
Climate change will hurt economic growth
78% of the survey participants said that it's likely (36%) or extremely likely (42%) that climate change will have a long-term negative impact on the growth rate of the global economy. That's an important point, because most current integrated economic-climate assessment models assume that economic growth will continue regardless of climate change impacts. There's been a growing body of research indicating that as you might expect, that won't be the case.
The results of this survey question show that most expert economists agree, climate change will hurt global economic growth. That also suggests that past model-based studies likely significantly underestimated the costs of climate change. Along the same lines, 51% of the experts answered that the US government's estimate for the "social cost of carbon" ($37 per metric ton), which is largely based on estimates from these models, is too low. 18% of the experts said that value is about right, and just 8% said it's too high.
Carbon pricing is an efficient way to cut pollution
The survey also asked the experts about the most economically efficient method of reducing carbon pollution. 81% said a market-based system (carbon tax or cap and trade system) would be most efficient, while 13% answered that coordinated performance standards and programs that prioritize cleaner fuels and energy efficiency would be most efficient.
In the US, President Obama's Clean Power Plan is closer to the latter system of performance standards, although the president has said he would prefer the type of market-based system favored by 81% of economic experts. Implementing a carbon tax or cap and trade system would require bipartisan congressional action, but over the past several years, Republican Party leaders have shown scant interest in crafting the efficient climate policies favored by economic experts and by their own voters.
Consensus of economic experts: cut carbon pollution
The NYU survey reveals a clear economic consensus on global warming. The experts agree: climate change is hurting the global economy, we should mitigate those costs by cutting carbon pollution, and the most efficient way to do that is with a market-based system like a carbon tax or cap and trade system.
This expert consensus clearly contradicts the arguments made by Republican Party leaders and other opponents of climate policies – that taking these actions will cripple the economy. In reality, economists are worried that if we fail to cut carbon pollution and instead continue with business-as-usual, it will badly stunt economic growth and may potentially lead to catastrophic economic consequences.
However, we can still solve the problem while creating jobs and growing the economy, if our political leaders will listen to the economic experts and their voters. So far, convincing Republican Party leaders to listen to an expert climate consensus has been a fruitless task, but there are signs that the party is starting to move in the right direction.
Links
No comments:
Post a Comment