[The authors of this study framed their results incorrectly, I think, causing many in the media to miscover or ignore the story.]

Scientists led by a former co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [warn] that the UN negotiations aimed at tackling climate change are based on substantial underestimates of what it will cost to adapt to its impacts.

The real costs of adaptation are likely to be 2-3 times greater than estimates made by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), say Professor Martin Parry and colleagues in a new report published by the International Institute for Environment and Development [IIED].

And as the IIED reported, the study Assessing the costs of adaptation to climate change: a review of the UNFCCC and other recent estimates concludes costs will be even more when the full range of climate impacts on human activities is considered.

The study finds that the mean “Net present value of climate change impacts” in the A2 scenario is $1240 TRILLION with no adaptation, but “only” $890 trillion with adaptation.

The mean [annual] impacts in 2060 are about $1.5 trillion….  As usual, there is a long right tail, with a small probability of impacts as large as $20 trillion.

Don’t worry folks, it’s only a “small probability” — but that “fat tail” by itself is enough to render all traditional economic analyses useless (see Harvard economist: Climate cost-benefit analyses are “unusually misleading,” warns colleagues “we may be deluding ourselves and others”).  Let’s put aside the fact we are on pace to exceed the A2 scenario (which is “only” about 850 ppm atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in 2100):  See U.S. media largely ignores latest warning from climate scientists: “Recent observations confirm “¦ the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised” “” 1000 ppm.  For this country, the A2 scenario means 9 to 11°F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90°F some 120 days a year.

But here’s the key point the media and the authors failed to convey.  In the “aggressive abatement” case (450 ppm), the mean “Net present value [NPV] of climate change impacts” is only $410 trillion — or $275 trillion with adaptation.  So stabilizing at 450 ppm reduces NPV impacts by $615 to $830 trillion.  But the abatement NPV cost is only $110 trillion — a 6-to-1 savings or better.

Bizarrely, the authors never point this out directly.  They are adaptation experts, so rather than focusing on the immense economic benefits of preventing catastrophic global warming in the first place, they offer up this secondary conclusion as their primary finding:

Read more

“Green jobs” may be a trendy phrase, but its underlying principles are as old as the Constitution itself.

No doubt Glenn Beck will call now call Jim Rogers a socialist — and some readers may call him schizophrenic or worse.   But the coal-plant-building, climate-bill-endorsing, coal-front-group-quitting CEO of Duke Energy agrees with me that in the future the only jobs left will be green:

There is no such thing as a “green” job. Or at least there shouldn’t be.

It has become fashionable to say “green jobs” will lead us out of the recession. Green jobs put people to work, achieve long-term cost savings and ease demand on limited resources. They provide a “paycheck with a purpose.”

Tom Friedman, New York Times columnist and author of the book “Hot, Flat, and Crowded,” has often said we’ll know the green revolution has succeeded when we no longer need the word “green” as a descriptor. Terms like “green buildings” and “green energy” will be redundant as high performance and sustainability become our new “business as usual.”

Friedman is right. Reducing waste, improving productivity and boosting efficiency are all traits of the green movement, but they are also hallmarks of good business. Companies of all sizes that embrace these sustainable behaviors are finding that they can enhance their profitability in any economic climate.

Performing every job in a more sustainable manner, however, must begin with a mandate from leaders and involve buy-in from employees.

Very coy, his ambiguous use of the phrase “must begin with a mandate from leaders.”  Does he mean corporate CEOs — or Washington DC political leaders?  Either way, it’s one thing for Climate Progress to say all future jobs will be green, and quite another for Rogers to do so as a long letter to the editor of the Indianapolis Star, a major swing state.  He continues:

Read more

The House climate and clean energy bill has made energy efficiency a centerpiece (see “The triumph of energy efficiency: Waxman-Markey could save $3,900 per household and create 650,000 jobs by 2030“).  It would generate some $500 billion through 2025 in efficiency investments alone (see “The only way to win the clean energy race is to pass the clean energy bill“).  This new CAP analysis, which includes a state-by-state data on energy savings, cost savings, job creation, and pollution reductions from efficiency investments under the American Clean Energy and Security Act (.xls), by Daniel J. Weiss, Erica Goad, and Jonathan Aronchick was first published here.

Energy efficiency is the “low-hanging fruit” of energy policy, and is the quickest, easiest, and most cost-effective way of driving new investment, creating jobs, saving consumers money, and cutting pollution.  Energy efficiency alone could cheaply””and often profitably””provide two-thirds the necessary greenhouse gas reductions to reduce carbon emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050“”a level based on the science-driven conclusion that the risks of dangerous climate impacts rise sharply as planetary warming exceeds 2°C from preindustrial levels. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454“”which passed the House and is now pending in the Senate””recognizes and invests in the economic benefits of energy efficiency.

The bill would provide up to $65 billion in allowances from 2012 to 2020 for state and local government energy efficiency programs (see chart). These funds are in addition to other investments in energy efficiency from utilities and the federal government. The state and local programs in ACES would create up to 137,000 jobs in 2015 from energy efficiency investments that year [1]. It would save consumers up to $63 billion on their electricity bills from 2012-2020, while reducing enough greenhouse gas pollution during this period to equal taking 26.5 million cars off the road.

These projections are based on our analysis that provides estimates of efficiency investments, job creation, electricity savings, and greenhouse gas pollution reductions under state and local government energy efficiency programs funded by ACES. This includes the cumulative benefits from these efficiency investments. Once a building is made more efficient, the electricity savings and pollution reductions accrue every year compared to business as usual. So the lower energy costs that occur due to investments in 2012 are also a benefit in 2013, 2014, and so on. Any energy savings from efficiency measures undertaken in 2013 are in addition to the savings in 2012.

Read more