What will global warming inaction cost the United States?

Question

A recent study by the University of Maryland (UMD) found that taking no action at all is the USA's most expensive policy option with regards to global warming.

The UMD report cites five key lessons:

1) Economic impacts of climate change will occur throughout the country.

2) Economic impacts will be unevenly distributed across regions and within the economy and society.

3) Negative climate impacts will outweigh benefits for most sectors that provide essential goods and services to society.

4) Climate change impacts will place immense strains on public sector budgets.

5) Secondary effects of climate impacts can include higher prices, reduced income, and job losses.

Story: http://green.yahoo.com/blog/climate411/48/the-most-expensive-solution-do-nothing.html

Report: http://www.cier.umd.edu/climateadaptation/

You can also see a breakdown of economic impact by region (West, Southwest, Midwest, etc.) at the bottom of the second link.

Thoughts?

Camp - it breaks down the analysis in each section. For example in the west we get much of our water from the mountain snowpacks. Snowfall is projected to decrease due to global warming, which reduces the amount of water available.

Jim z - okay here's some good news - Siberia will become habitable as a result of global warming.

Feel better now?

Answer 1

A lot of money. No one knows. The USA needs to find a way to be environmentally friendly, but still have a strong economy. That is the biggest problem keeping both the environmentalist and the work force/economy happy.

And plus if George Bush wants to hold meetings about Global Warming something might happen. But I'm not counting on it. The people who care about the future of the planet might have to. Or the next president will be able to do a better job than Bush ever did.

Answer 2

Putting aside the absurdly large margin for error in these calculations and the underlying estimates and models, there is a large flaw in the analysis. The costs were calculated on an aggregated basis, and do not factor the impact and cost on individual countries. For example, certain countries would be devastated by global warming, while others could potentially benefit, and there is no correlation between that variance and the contribution those countries make toward global warming, or the costs for any individual country to remediate global warming.

For example, small island countries contribute little, but would be damaged the most. China, which contributes the most, and contributes it a dramatically increasing rate, would suffer relatively little (and would never do anything about it anyway). Therefore, individual country's costs/benefit analysis vary widely. In the end, the U.S. would have to take on a disproportionately enormous burden, but would get a relatively small benefit.

Answer 3

No surprises really, GW hooked up with peak oil, which I don't expect is worked into the study, has been dubbed the "Long Emergency".

I think 'unevenly' is an important word in there, or is that just life? As a 'middle' class environmentalist I can get frustrated that it is identified as a middle class issue. Which 'class' is going to be doing most of the suffering? look at Katrina.

Personally, no, my impetus is not a guilt complex

Answer 4

Fred, I am not sure of what you say.

My bet is rather that the people displaced by global warming will try to migrate massively to western countries. Alone this would put an enormous burden.

FRED: What is wrong about what you state:

Chine WILL BE LARGELY AFFECTED and DOES A LOT COMPARED TO THE US:
http://en.ndrc.gov.cn/newsrelease/P020070604561191006823.pdf

The cumulated historical emissions of China are much lower, even considered only during the period in which we knew the correlation between human activities and climate change.
The emissions per capita in China are still 6X lower than in the US

Answer 5

Isn't the nat'l debt already around $9 trillion? I wonder if Sweden is one of those that would benefit but are doing something anyway.I've heard good things about them. Who knows? I might consider Northern Canada...I'm going to look into moving if the next pres. is as useless as this one is when it comes to the climate.
BTW, weathermen are not climate scientologists, Campbelp2002

Answer 6

I simply do not accept statements in your source like "Regional droughts, water shortages, as well as excess precipitation..." I find it nearly impossible to believe that they know that. The weather man cannot accurately predict if next year will be good or bad for agriculture, and you expect them to accurately predict the next 50 or 100 years? Why would you believe they could know that? Higher temperatures will automatically cause more evaporation which will automatically cause more humidity which will automatically cause more rain. But saying that you know the rain will be badly distributed by time and place (as in droughts and floods instead of just more steady rain) is beyond belief.

Answer 7

Just once I would like to hear something positive. Do you really believe that all consequences of warming are negative. If that were the case we should all move to northern Canada.

Answer 8

blah blah blah. All the universities have a liberal agenda as well as the media. They are just trying to scare people into thinking global warming is man made, but it is not. Its a natural cycle.

Answer 9

It will be a field day for lawyers saying that decision making bodies failed in their duty to take action.

Answer 10

A whole lot less than feel-good, silly "action."