Climate Battle Plan Shifts to Bottom Line

July 29, 2014, 2 a.m.

Democrats hope to shift the politics of climate change by highlighting what they say are the massive costs of failing to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.

The messaging push—in the form of a new White House report and a Senate hearing Tuesday—contradicts claims by the GOP that robust policies to cut carbon dioxide will hobble the economy.

Democrats insist that a much greater financial risk lies in ignoring the devastating impact of unchecked global warming. “Delaying action will increase the cost,” said Jason Furman, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

The CEA report released Tuesday attempts to estimate the long-term expense of avoiding steps to curb global emissions.

It arrives as the Environmental Protection Agency is crafting rules to cut emissions from coal-fired power plants, a plan that administration officials hope will provide leverage to win concessions from China and other nations in international climate talks.

One scenario that CEA modeled would allow global carbon emissions to accumulate enough to boost temperatures by 3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, rather than limiting the rise to 2 degrees, which is the target of international negotiations.

That one-degree difference would increase annual climate-related global economic damages—from coastal flooding, heat-related illness, and other harm—by an amount equivalent to roughly 1 percent of global economic output, the report concludes.

“To put this percentage in perspective, 0.9 percent of estimated 2014 U.S. Gross Domestic Product is approximately $150 billion. The incremental cost of an additional degree of warming beyond 3° Celsius would be even greater. Moreover, these costs are not one-time, but are rather incurred year after year, because of the permanent damage caused by increased climate change resulting from the delay,” the report states.

Furman told reporters that the estimates are conservative.

The CEA report explores a second way in which delaying action causes economic damages mount. When policymakers eventually do attempt to stave off runaway temperature increases, the most cost-effective options won’t be available anymore, the authors say.

“Delays mean that the target will be met in a less efficient manner. We will lose the opportunity to make investments that are consistent with low carbon emissions,” Furman said.

Costs of curbing emissions increase by 40 percent for each decade of delay, according to the report, which is based on an analysis of existing studies.

Furman said that uncertainty about the timing, magnitude, and consequences of climate change is not a justification to put off emissions cuts.

Indeed, the report also says cutting emissions is a form of “climate insurance” against the “most severe and irreversible” potential consequences, such as temperature rises on the high end of scientific estimates if emissions continue unchecked.

The report is aimed at bolstering the case for the big EPA rules and other executive steps. On Tuesday the Energy Department is rolling out initiatives to help cut leaks of the potent greenhouse gas methane from natural-gas distribution and transmission lines.

Capitol Hill Democrats are similarly trying to put opponents of curbing emissions on the defensive.

A Senate Budget Committee hearing Tuesday will explore how “failing to mitigate the risks associated with climate change will affect the U.S. federal budget.”

At the same time that Democrats are focusing on the financial fallout of climate change, private-sector climate advocates have stepped up their own efforts to stress the economic risks as well.

Last month, an initiative called “Risky Business”—led by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr., and billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer—produced an analysis of regional economic vulnerabilities to climate change.

More recently, former Clinton-era Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who works with the Bloomberg-Paulson-Steyer group, penned a Washington Post op-ed late last week that calls on federal budget planners to begin reckoning more deeply with global warming.

“Future federal spending to deal with climate change is likely to be enormous and should be included in fiscal projections, whether in existing estimates or in an additional estimate that includes climate change,” Rubin writes.

But Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, isn’t buying the arguments on the long-term costs of failing to implement policies such as carbon curbs on power plants.

“Inaction costs may be real, but certainly they are distant and somewhat uncertain. But the costs of action are certain right now. They are real and immediate,” Sessions said at the outset of the Budget Committee hearing Tuesday.

“It’s not enough just to say the danger is great, therefore we are free to demand the nation spend whatever is necessary, whatever the cost to be a leader in the world on these issues,” he added, warning of regulations that result in higher power prices and act as a drag on the economy.

EPA estimates that its plan to cut emissions from existing power plants will impose compliance costs of up to $8.8 billion per year in 2030, but the agency’s analysis also finds that public health and climate benefits would far outweigh those costs.

What We're Following See More »
AMONG INVESTIGATION'S LAST KNOWN INTERVIEWS
Mueller Has Interviewed Press Sec. Sarah Sanders
8 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has interviewed White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, she told CNN on Friday...The interview is one of the final known interviews by Mueller's team. It was conducted late last year, around the same time as the special counsel interviewed then-White House chief of staff John Kelly, well after a number of other senior officials, including former White House communications director Hope Hicks and former press secretary Sean Spicer, were brought in for questioning."

Source:
AG BECERRA CALLS TRUMP'S PLAN A 'FOOLISH PROPOSAL'
Gov. Newsom Says California Will Sue Trump Over Emergency Declaration
8 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Gov. Gavin Newsom said Friday that California was planning to sue the Trump administration over its declaration of a national emergency on the southern border with Mexico, delivering on a promise state Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra made last week 'to reject this foolish proposal in court the moment it touches the ground.'...'No other state is going to be impacted by this declaration of emergency more than the state of California,' the governor said. Becerra said attorneys were reviewing the declaration and would develop the legal argument to take to court in the near future."

Source:
AVOIDS SHUTDOWN WITH A FEW HOURS TO SPARE
Trump Signs Border Deal
8 hours ago
THE LATEST

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Source:
JUDGE SIDES WITH MUELLER
Stone Under Gag Order
10 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"A federal judge on Friday ordered Roger Stone, his attorneys and the special counsel’s office to halt all public commentary about the case involving charges that the longtime Donald Trump associate lied to Congress and obstructed its Russia investigation. In a four-page order, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson sided with Mueller that Stone and his attorneys 'must refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case.'"

Source:
REDIRECTS $8 BILLION
Trump Declares National Emergency
15 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"President Donald Trump on Friday declared a state of emergency on the southern border and immediately direct $8 billion to construct or repair as many as 234 miles of a border barrier. The move — which is sure to invite vigorous legal challenges from activists and government officials — comes after Trump failed to get the $5.7 billion he was seeking from lawmakers. Instead, Trump agreed to sign a deal that included just $1.375 for border security."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login