The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Delaying Climate Action Would Triple Future Energy and Mitigation Costs
Putting off global efforts to fight climate change until 2030 could increase the costs of short-term mitigation by more than three times, according to new research.
Published in the journal, Environmental Research Letters, the study looked at the economic impacts of possible international climate agreements.
If an agreement was reached to start taking action in 2015 to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius, then international economic growth would be cut back by two percent. Delaying those steps until 2030 would mean growth curtailed by around seven percent.
The report’s lead author Gunnar Luderer said:
For the first time, our study quantifies the short-term costs of tiptoeing when confronted with the climate challenge. Economists tend to look at how things balance out in the long-term, but decision-makers understandably worry about additional burdens for people and businesses they are responsible for right now.
So increased short-term costs due to delaying climate policy might deter decision-makers from starting the transformation. The initial costs of climate policies thus can be more relevant than the total costs.
Governments are currently working towards a new global agreement on climate change to be in place by 2015. The new research highlights the importance of not postponing mitigation.
The later climate policy is implemented the faster emissions will have to be reduced if countries are to achieve their internationally agreed target of limiting warming to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
This will make such policies more expensive. The researchers also examined the impact of climate policy on energy prices.
If emissions are delayed beyond 2030, global energy price levels are likely to increase by 80 percent in the short term, they found. If an agreement was reached in 2015, short-term energy price rises could be limited to 25 percent.
Such price increases are particularly concerning because of the burden they put on the world’s poor.
Visit EcoWatch’s CLIMATE CHANGE page for more related news on this topic.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Editor's note: The coronavirus that started in Wuhan has sickened more than 4,000 people and killed at least 100 in China as of Jan. 27, 2020. Thailand and Hong Kong each have reported eight confirmed cases, and five people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with the illness. People are hoping for a vaccine to slow the spread of the disease.
By Nancy Schimelpfening
- Nutrition experts say healthy eating is about making good choices most of the time.
- Treats like cookies can be eaten in moderation.
- Information like total calories, saturated fat, and added sugars can be used to compare which foods are relatively healthier.
- However, it's also important to savor and enjoy what you're eating so you don't feel deprived.
Yes, we know. Cookies aren't considered a "healthy" food by any stretch of the imagination.
When you see an actor in handcuffs, they're usually filming a movie. But when Jane Fonda, Ted Danson, Sally Field, and other celebrities were arrested in Washington, D.C., last fall, the only cameras rolling were from the news media.
As the Pacific Ocean becomes more acidic, Dungeness crabs, which live in coastal areas, are seeing their shells eaten away, according to a new study commissioned by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).