ABC News: U.S. prestige falling as world has ‘pretty well given up’ on any American leadership facing climate change.

The legendary Peter Raven has a must-see ABC News interview. Bill Blakemore has a terrific piece on it, ”Global Warming Denialism ‘Just Foolishness,’ Scientist Peter Raven Says.”

Raven and biologist Paul R. Ehrlich co-invented “the bedrock concept of co-evolution,” in 1964.  Raven tells ABC bluntly

“It’s not a matter of conjecture anymore,” he said. “Climate change is the most serious challenge probably that the human race has ever confronted.”

Raven quickly summarized the virtually unanimous understanding of the world’s climate scientists and other responsible experts about the great upheavals manmade global warming is now producing.

Blakemore has a great video interview of Raven “in the now world-famous, immense and exquisite gardens that .. he had turned into an expansive vision of what a peaceful and balanced world could look like — a sort of international botanical metaphor.”

Raven talks warming starting around 2:15:

He slams denialism, as Blakemore explains:

Read more

Colorado is facing drought not seen since 2002, following the fourth-warmest and third-least-snowy winter in US history. Colorado State University scientists report that 98 percent of the state is facing these drought conditions.

The drought comes after a record-breaking warm winter that left very low “snowpack levels” in water basins. “Even though the reservoir levels are still strong and northeast Colorado soil moisture is still pretty good, we just don’t usually start out quite this warm and dry at this time — so this is very concerning,” CSU climatologist Nolan Doesken said. “In 2002, things didn’t seem that bad at the end of March, as March had been quite cool, with some snow.”

Colorado’s hydrofracking boom — a technology that heavily relies on water — only adds additional strain as farmers and drillers bid for a scarce resource:

At Colorado’s premier auction for unallocated water this spring, companies that provide water for hydraulic fracturing at well sites were top bidders on supplies once claimed exclusively by farmers. [...]

State officials charged with promoting and regulating the energy industry estimated that fracking required about 13,900 acre-feet in 2010. That’s a small share of the total water consumed in Colorado, about 0.08 percent. However, this fast-growing share already exceeds the amount that the ski industry draws from mountain rivers for making artificial snow. Each oil or gas well drilled requires 500,000 to 5 million gallons of water.

A Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission report projected water needs for fracking will increase to 18,700 acre-feet a year by 2015.

Farmers who go to the auctions seeking to produce food — or maybe plant more acres — are on equal footing with companies seeking water for fracking, Northern Water spokesman Brian Werner said.

“If you have a beneficial use for the water, then you can bid for that water,” Werner said. “We see the beneficial use of the water as a positive for the economy of the whole region. Fracking is one of those uses. Our uses of water have evolved over 150 years.”

States including Colorado, Alabama, Florida, and Virginia have all faced raging wildfires before wildfire season even officially sets off, fueled by the winter that wasn’t and the March madness powered by global warming pollution from fossil-fuel polluters like Colorado’s frackers.

Arguing that Republicans don’t reflexively deny scientific facts, conservative MSNBC commentator S.E. Cupp repeated Climategate smears against climate science. Cupp was attacking the premise of author and Science Progress contributor Chris Mooney’s new book, The Republican Brain, which looks at how conservative propaganda and ideological tendencies have led to increasing distrust in science among the American right. Cupp bowled over host Alex Wagner, citing Rick Santorum as her authority that the fact of man-made climate change is “corrupted” by “phony studies”:

CUPP: Here’s what I find infuriating. We have a long and glorious tradition in this country of questioning science. We’ve been questioning science in fact for centuries, asking is science right on this? The idea that science is some unimpeachable institution that cannot be questioned flies in fact in the face of the bedrock of the scientific method, which is skepticism. Whether we are trying to disprove science as junk science or exposing certain science as immoral. I’m thinking of eugenics here, population control. The idea that when a Republican does it is somehow scary or backwards, is exactly why the public is skeptical of science as having been politicized because of suggestions like this that Republicans writ large are afraid of science.

WAGNER: I mean honestly. We have seen Newt Gingrich on the couch with Nancy Pelosi talking about climate change.

CUPP: There have been, to quote Rick Santorum, phony studies on climate change. East Anglia University I should mention!

WAGNER: And that study –

CUPP: Every time science has been corrupted by politics, everyone in the scientific community should be worried!

Watch it:

As Wagner was evidently trying to point out, the hacked emails from East Anglia University were shown by repeated independent investigation to show nothing other than private conversations among ethical scientists doing valid scientific work, despite a well-funded smear campaign to distort the contents of the emails.

“It’s good to be open-minded,” Mooney responded, “but at some point you have to respect the process and the scientific consensus that emerges. That’s what doesn’t happen from the right.”

Glacial melt. Invasive species. Mudslides. Erosion. Mountains around the world are seeing major changes accelerated by a warming planet.

Mountains represent 25% of the earth’s surface and host 13% of the world’s population. Warming-fueled changes are threatening sensitive ecosystems, water resources, climbing routes, and, in turn, the way of life in local communities (see “As Warming Glaciers Retreat, What Will Become of Peru’s Cordillera Blanca and Its Water Supply?“)

Below is a list of five iconic mountains — known for their cultural, resource, and recreational significance — that are being directly impacted by climate change.

1. Mount Everest

As the highest mountain in the world, Everest is widely known. But this iconic mountain, located in the Himalayas, has changed dramatically in recent years as snow and ice melt makes climbing routes more dangerous. Some locals fear that the mountain will soon be unclimbable:

Apa Sherpa, the Nepali climber who has conquered Mount Everest a record 21 times, said he was disturbed by the lack of snow on the world’s highest peak, caused by rising temperatures.

“In 1989 when I first climbed Everest there was a lot of snow and ice but now most of it has just become bare rock. That, as a result, is causing more rockfalls which is a danger to the climbers,” he told AFP.

“Also, climbing is becoming more difficult because when you are on a mountain you can wear crampons but it’s very dangerous and very slippery to walk on bare rock with crampons.”

According to the International Center for Integrated Mountain Development, glaciers in the Himalayas have declined by 21 percent in the last three decades. And this isn’t just bad for climbers and for local tourism. It’s a massive threat to 1.3 billion people living downstream from this important water source.

2. The Matterhorn

The Matterhorn is one of Europe’s tallest mountains. Located in the Alps, it offers climbers dozens of unique technical climbs. (And for someone not looking to be one of hundreds who’ve died on the mountain, there’s also a cable car). However, climate change is threatening both climbers and cable car riders as warming temperatures cause the mountain to break apart:

Researchers from the University of Zurich, who have been studying the mountain closely since 2007, say melting water is permeating exposed cracks and crevices on the 4,478m (14,690ft) mountain, which straddles the Swiss-Italian boarder. Subsequent cycles of freezing and thawing in these gaps are creating subtle movements under the rock surface, causing ever-widening fissures with the result that lumps of rock are falling off, the researchers say.

The crumbling of the Matterhorn is symptomatic of what’s happening in the rest of the Alps, say the report’s authors. That could mean major safety hazards for cable cars and hiking routes on other mountains in the region.

3. Mount McKinley

Also known as Denali, Mount McKinley is the highest peak in North America. Located in Alaska’s Denali National Park, the popular mountain attracts some of the most experienced climbers in the world.

However, Alaska is warming much faster than the rest of the United States. According to the U.S. Global Research Program, Alaska has seen temperatures increase at twice the rate of the lower 48 states. That’s causing glaciers to retreat, helping invasive species thrive, and accelerating thawing permafrost — steadily changing the landscape around Denali. The National Park Service warned of the consequences to park visitors in a recent report:

Shrinking glaciers and heavy snowmelt make it more likely that the frozen walls of glacial lakes will fail, triggering flash floods and debris flows that could endanger park workers and visitors, the report said.

At Denali National Park, one of the state’s top tourist destinations, once-frozen hillsides are unleashing cascades of mud as they thaw, causing problems along the lone road that snakes through the heart of the park.

Denali may not be crumbling like the Matterhorn or melting as quickly as Everest, but the mountain and the surrounding landscape are experiencing noticeable changes in a very short period of time — and those changes are only accelerating.

Read more

by Bill McKibben, via TomDispatch

Along with “fivedollaragallongas,” the energy watchword for the next few months is: “subsidies.” Last week, for instance, New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez proposed ending some of the billions of dollars in handouts enjoyed by the fossil-fuel industry with a “Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act.”  It was, in truth, nothing to write home about — a curiously skimpy bill that only targeted oil companies, and just the five richest of them at that. Left out were coal and natural gas, and you won’t be surprised to learn that even then it didn’t pass.

Still, President Obama is now calling for an end to oil subsidies at every stop on his early presidential-campaign-plus-fundraising blitz — even at those stops where he’s also promising to “drill everywhere.” And later this month Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders will introduce a much more comprehensive bill that tackles all fossil fuels and their purveyors (and has no chance whatsoever of passing this Congress).

Whether or not the bill passes, those subsidies are worth focusing on.  After all, we’re talking at least $10 billion in freebies and, depending on what you count, possibly as much as $40 billion annually in freebie cash for an energy industry already making historic profits.  If attacking them is a convenient way for the White House to deflect public anger over rising gas prices, it is also a perfect fit for the new worldview the Occupy movement has been teaching Americans. (Not to mention, if you think about it, the Tea Party focus on deficits.) So count on one thing: we’ll be hearing a lot more about them this year.

But there’s a problem: the very word “subsidies” makes American eyes glaze over. It sounds so boring, like something that has everything to do with finance and taxes and accounting, and nothing to do with you. Which is just the reaction that the energy giants are relying on: that it’s a subject profitable enough for them and dull enough for us that no one will really bother to challenge their perks, many of which date back decades.

By some estimates, getting rid of all the planet’s fossil-fuel subsidies could get us halfway to ending the threat of climate change. Many of those subsidies, however, take the form of cheap, subsidized gas in petro-states, often with impoverished populations — as in Nigeria, where popular protests forced the government to back down on a decision to cut such subsidies earlier this year. In the U.S., though, they’re simply straightforward presents to rich companies, gifts from the 99% to the 1%.

If due attention is to be paid, we have to figure out a language in which to talk about them that will make it clear just how loony our policy is.

Read more

The Senate minority who last week blocked a vote on ending Big Oil subsidies received more than four times the oil and gas contributions than the 51 senators voting to end them. Exxon Mobil, the world’s most profitable corporation, has helped preserve these and other loopholes for oil and gas by building a Washington force tied intimately to conservative lawmakers, Steve Coll reports in this week’s New Yorker. The corporation relies on an algorithm to determine tiers of oil industry allies and sent 90 percent of contributions to Republicans last year.

Lacking the same connections it had from the Clinton and Bush administrations, Exxon’s strategy has shifted in Washington to pursuing a “blocking strategy” that thwarts climate and tax reform legislation:

During both the Bush and the Obama Administrations, ExxonMobil has concentrated its efforts in Washington on preventing certain tax and regulatory bills from being enacted, such as Obama’s proposal, this winter, to strip away industry tax advantages. The corporation has invested mainly in a blocking strategy, focussing its PAC donations on Republicans who can try to assure that no damaging laws go through. “Whoever’s in power in the House has almost dictatorial power,” a Washington consultant who has worked on oil-industry issues says. “If you control what’s going on in the House, you have huge influence over the final” legislation, as well as over the budgets and spending mandates that shape regulation.”

In the past decade, the leading recipient of ExxonMobil PAC contributions has been Representative Joe Barton, a Republican from Texas, who has held senior positions on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where most legislation affecting the oil industry originates. Anne Northup, a former Republican congresswoman from Kentucky, who now serves on the Consumer Product Safety Commission, received the second largest amount of campaign money. ExxonMobil’s ten leading campaign contribution recipients in that decade were all House Republicans, according to research done by the journalist Ann O’Hanlon.

Exxon is the largest political contributor in the oil and gas industry, spending nearly a million so far in the 2012 election cycle and another $12.7 million in 2011; it also funds corporate front group American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The strategy has paid off for Exxon, which made 35 percent higher profits last year on higher gas prices, yet paid a lower federal tax rate of an estimated 13 percent.

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, Republicans helped

• create our national parks to conserve land
• launch the EPA to do science-based pollution regulation and
• invent cap-and-trade to reduce emissions in the most business-friendly, cost-effective way possible.

Ah, but when Obama Wan Kenobi actually got elected President, the fossil fuel empire struck back:  Working with and indeed funding the Tea Party (Imperial Storm Troopers?), they turned anti-environmentalism and anti-science denial into a litmus test for all national Republicans.

Still, I’m somewhat surprised by this:

After 16 years of trying to marry their party’s support for drilling and climate change denial with environmental protection, Republicans for Environmental Protection is dropping the word “Republican” from its name.

The group’s new name, ConservAmerica, is designed to “explain the connection between conservatism and conservation” and underscore the group’s ethic of stewardship.

“Our mission is staying exactly the same,” said David Jenkins, the group’s vice president for government affairs. “It’s more of an emphasis issue, switching from the emphasis being on Republican — not that we’re separating ourselves from that at all. It’s just putting the emphasis more on connecting conservation and conservative, which are born of the same root.”

When the brand goes south there’s nothing wrong with changing one’s name, of course — think Accenture (Anderson Consulting), Airtran Airways (ValueJet Airlines), and Altria (Philip Morris) just to start with the A’s. Heck, Google used to be called BackRub!

But I don’t think the problem was the word “Republicans” — since a great many Republicans are still environmentalists, especially at the state and local level. The problem is that the national party has been pulled so far to the right that the “moderates” (who, formerly were mainstream conservatives) either have no place (like Jon Huntsman) or have to Etch-A-Sketch themselves into extremism.

In fact, as I’ve reported, at the individual level, Koch-fueled denial backfired: Independents and other Republicans split with Tea-Party extremists on global warming. A December Pew poll found that from 2009 to 2011, the percentage of moderate or liberal Republicans who say there is “solid evidence” the earth is warming jumped 22 percentage points, from 41% to 63% — 15 percentage points just since last year (from 48 to 63).

It’s not most Republicans who have moved away from the environment, it’s the extremist conservative wing that has moved so far away. So I’m not sure how “ConservAmerica” addresses that. As my colleague Daniel Weiss, director of climate strategy for the Center for American Progress Action Fund, told Politico:

“Under either name … they face a fundamental challenge that the pro conservation party of Roosevelt, Nixon, Schwarzenegger and McCain has become the climate science denial party of Romney, Santorum and Limbaugh.”

Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader — now that’s a name change!

It was announced yesterday that PepsiCo, a corporate leader in the fight against manmade climate change, has ceased its funding of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a right-wing climate-denial organization.

PepsiCo has now also admitted to being a past funder of the climate-denial think tank Heartland Institute. In a statement to ThinkProgress Green, the $57-billion food and beverages giant indicated that its funding was for Heartland’s efforts against soda and junk food taxes, not for its promotion that climate change is a “myth.” A PepsiCo spokeswoman explained that the company “is currently not a member of the Heartland Institute”:

PepsiCo was a member of the Heartland Institute specifically related to taxes on the consumption of food and beverage products. PepsiCo is currently not a member of the Heartland Institute nor did we engage with them on climate issues while a member.

The Heartland Institute has argued that “sin taxes” on soda, liquor, or cigarettes “lead to smuggling across state lines” and “gang activity.” An article attacking state-level soda taxes questioned “how bad the obesity problem is.” Instead of improving public health with taxes on products that degrade children’s health, Heartland argues, we should be “privatizing non-core functions of government.” The institute even railed against governmental “obesity police” for proposing voluntary children’s advertising guidelines for the junk-food industry.

An internal document leaked from the anti-science group showed that PepsiCo gave at least $5000 in tax-deductible contributions in 2010 for Heartland’s Budget and Tax News Initiative. It is unknown whether PepsiCo gave earlier contributions. PepsiCo’s public page listing its charitable contributions in 2010 does not list the Heartland Institute as a recipient. PepsiCo has spent nearly $20 million on Washington DC lobbying since 2009.

PepsiCo’s support for Heartland’s attacks on public-health-driven policy is not an isolated incident. In an article at the City University of New York Law Review, public health lawyer Michele Simon argues that PepsiCo is “coopting the scientific conversation around public health and diet.” As a member of the industry front groups Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative and the Sensible Food Policy Coalition, PepsiCo has opposed even voluntary regulation of the junk food that drives PepsiCo’s profits and America’s obesity epidemic.

Simon argues that PepsiCo’s hiring of internationally renowned public health experts like Derek Yach and Dr. George Mensah is an attempt to subvert public-health science rather than to make their business healthier.

PepsiCo’s past willingness to support the Heartland Institute — which even argues against the health threat of cigarette smoking — does raise questions about the earnestness of PepsiCo’s pledge to improve the public-health impact of their products.

However, PepsiCo has one of the strongest public stances on the threat of man-made global warming in corporate America:

It is clear that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have an adverse impact on global temperatures, weather patterns and the frequency and severity of extreme weather and natural disasters. Because these changes could have an impact on the availability or pricing of certain commodities that are necessary for our products, we are continuously working to address climate change, from scaling up the company’s use of renewable fuel sources to reducing energy consumption.

In 2009, PepsiCo joined the Ceres company network, pledging its “executive-level commitment to improve environmental and social performance” and “public reporting on sustainability strategy, commitments and performance.” As a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, PepsiCo lobbied in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, comprehensive climate legislation that would have dramatically advanced the future of global public health.

The PepsiCo spokesperson contacted by ThinkProgress Green did not made any public commitments about future funding for the climate-denial think tank.

NOTE: One in a series of posts about the Heartland Institute’s inner workings, from internal documents acquired by ThinkProgress Green. ThinkProgress is among several publications to have published documents attributed to the Heartland Institute and sent to us from an anonymous and then unknown source. The source later revealed himself. Heartland Institute has issued several press releases claiming that one document (“2012 Climate Strategy”) is fake and asserting other claims regarding the other documents. ThinkProgress has taken down the “2012 Climate Strategy” document as it determines the document’s authenticity.

AP Photo

Monday’s news that yet another solar company that received Energy Department backing is filing for bankruptcy protection at first looked like the Obama administration had funded another expensive loser.

But unlike Solyndra’s high-profile and costly flameout, this time the news came with a twist that tripped up wire services, talking heads and members of Congress.

The company, Solar Trust, never took the money….

Even The Associated Press and Reuters got it wrong.

When the media latches on to a narrative, mistakes happen. Why? Confirmation bias sets in, so reporters and editors don’t do the same amount of due diligence as they would on a story that strikes their intuition — their nose for news — as incorrect.

The media mistakenly believes unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases are unlikely to have a catastrophic impact, so they downplay the story and play up the 1 in 20 articles that doesn’t show  the situation is more dire than scientists thought.

Now, the media erroneously thinks solar power is flaming out and that government support for solar isn’t a good idea. They have wildly overhyped Solyndra, ignoring anything that would undermine the narrative, such as the December Bloomberg report that concluded: “The focus on Solyndra is not proportional to its impact.”

So I suppose it’s no surprise that leading news outlets got the Solar Trust story wrong. Politico notes in its story, “A $2 billion solar mistake — from the media“ that the error underscores “the eagerness of many in the media to discover the next Solyndra.”

Precisely. In this case, their error was abetted by the right-wing disinformation machine:

Read more

“The clock is ticking, America. It’s time we focused on reality instead of rhetoric.”

Finally, a national ad about the threat of climate change? Nope. It’s another piece of spin from the coal industry.

Under threat from cheap natural gas, savvy activist groups working overtime to shut down plants, and the declining cost of renewable energy, the coal industry has rolled out a new ad trying desperately to paint itself as “clean.”

“It’s time to recognize that America’s unsurpassed coal reserves can deliver centuries of affordable electricity…It’s time we recognized that the nearly $100 billion spent on clean coal technologies have resulted in real environmental progress.”

Centuries of coal burning? Scientists warn that we are already hitting tipping points that would make accelerating warming trends irreversible. If we burn coal for a couple more decades we’ll be in desperate trouble. Centuries? The warming scenario is almost unimaginable.

Real environmental progress? Last time I checked, coal was the source of 99% of mercury pollution from the U.S. power sector. Coal-fired electricity is also the largest source of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the U.S.

The only effective ways to address those problems are strong, smart regulatory standards. And the coal industry has fought those efforts tooth and nail.

Yes, the clock is indeed ticking.

EMMETSBURG, Iowa — Rep. Steve King (R-IA) beamed at a town hall meeting on Tuesday as he recounted a recent congressional hearing where he forced witnesses to “confess” that they were vegetarians.

King said the hearing included witnesses who called to testify before the House Agriculture Committee, including the president of the Humane Society as well as other animal rights groups. He recalled how during the hearing, he asked the individuals, “under oath, are you a vegetarian?” King smiled as he told the town hall constituents that they “confessed they were vegetarians, all of them.”

KING: I’m here to tell you I’m a committed carnivore. I like meat. I sit on the Ag Committee and we had a hearing before the Ag Committee when we invited in the president of the Humane Society of the United States, HSUS, President Wayne Pacelle. And we had one or two other witnesses from the anti-meat crowd or anti-animal husbandry crowd. PETA was there and one other animal activist group. So we just asked them, under oath, “are you a vegetarian?” And they confessed they were vegetarians, all of them. Well there they are with an agenda for our diets.

Watch it:

King offered his own “confession” at the end of the hearing. “I too am a vegetarian,” said the Iowa Republican. “I eat concentrated, recycled, enhanced vegetables in the form of meat.”

ThinkProgress went back to review the hearing transcripts to determine whether King’s story is accurate. It is not. The congressional hearing on animal welfare that King appears to be referencing occurred on May 8, 2007. There were no witnesses from PETA. King did not ask anyone “are you a vegetarian?” In fact, it was another member — Steve Kagen (D-WI) — who asked the Humane Society witness to say he was a vegetarian.

The only thing about King’s story that does appear to be true is that he did in fact say “I eat recycled, concentrated, enhanced vegetables in the form of meat.”

by Kaid Benfield, via NRDC’s Switchboard

I was privileged to be invited to participate along with some very smart urban thinkers in a recent program on the resilience of cities.  The program was sponsored by the New America Foundation, and I was on the first panel.

The subject of the Great Recession came up, and I volunteered that I thought the persistent economic slump had hurt both good and bad development.  But I offered that it had hurt bad development (e.g., land-consuming, totally automobile-dependent subdivisions on the suburban edge) more than good, given that new, speculative development in sprawling outer locations had virtually ground to a halt.  (What you see on the ground now that looks new was actually invested and entitled a decade or more ago.)  Many city infill and redevelopment projects, by contrast, are going forward and even commanding market premiums for their urban locations.  Housing values have declined much more, on a percentage basis, in sprawling subdivisions as compared to walkable, centrally located neighborhoods, many of which have even held steady or increased in value.

I’ve written several times about the various indicators that suggest this is so, and about some of the reasons why.  What I haven’t done recently, though, is update those data.  Fortunately, my friend Ben Brown of the planning and development advisory firm PlaceMakers has recently looked at the latest information and brought us all up to speed.

Baby Boomers and Millennials, shaping a community near you

Number one among reasons why this trend toward more city living and walkable suburban living is the “great convergence,” as Laurie Volk calls it, of the two largest generations in American history.  Together the Baby Boomers  (born 1946-1964) and Millennials (born 1981-2000), account for more than 150 million Americans.  Ben points out that a number that size is sufficiently large that even small portions within it can “have multiplier effects on housing supply and demand.”

The effect is being felt, because together the two super-generations are reducing the share of total households with children, traditionally the portion of the market most interested in suburban homes with sizeable lots for kids to play in and grownups to maintain.  Neither the Millennials with their preference for urban lifestyles nor the empty-nesting Boomers fit that market to nearly the same degree as, say, their parents did. Consider, for example, this graphical representation of demand for transit-oriented development (TOD):

Ben also points out that the changing market is borne out in newer consumer preference surveys, citing The National Association of Realtors’ 2011 Community Preference Survey.  In the NAR data, 58 percent of respondents indicated a preference for “a neighborhood with a mix of houses and stores and other businesses within an easy walk.”

As we all know, the current mixture of housing on the ground – especially that built within the pre-recession time frame of from 1975 to 2005 or so – doesn’t come anywhere close to matching the stated preference for walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods.  Wonder no more why city living is becoming more expensive.

Read more

Other stories below: Coke pulls the plug on anti-climate change ALEC Lobby; Climate change threat brings mountain communities together

Stopping Climate Change is Much Cheaper Than You Think (Mother Jones)

You’ve heard it before: politicians say they’d love to take action against climate change, but they’re reeling from the sticker shock. Today, a new report from the UK’s leading climate change watchdog refutes the oft-cited argument that climate action will herald economic Armageddon.

The Committee on Climate Change report, with the hairy-sounding title “Statutory Advice on Inclusion of International Aviation and Shipping,” says that in 2050, the UK’s emissions reductions across the whole economy will cost 1-2 percent of the total GDP. This updates, in greater detail, the range predicted half a decade ago by the watershed Stern Review….

The cost in GDP terms in the UK report accords with US studies. The Congressional Budget Office reported similar reductions would reduce the GDP here by 1-3 1⁄2 percent in 2050. One of the co-sponsors of the 2009 cap-and-trade bill, Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), said the scheme would cost the average family the equivalent of “about a postage stamp a day,” far less than critics claimed.

Related Post: “Introduction to climate economics: Why even strong climate action has such a low total cost”

Read more